Global Warming Skepticism

pmills

pmills

Active member
I know there's heeps of threads out there -- I hope this one will help keep future discussions in line... I give you skeptical science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

a website devoted to tracking the skepticism that surrounds the science of global warming while also providing well researched rebuttals to the common arguments.

There are 260+ arguments that have been made against global warming-- John Cook, the founder/editor of the website has had the time to reply to 92, thus far. It is regularly updated, and there's an iphone app.

Here's the interview/conversation that drew me to his site

http://news.discovery.com/earth/a-conversation-with-a-genuine-skeptic.html

 
I'm not behind man made global warming, mostly because of the ridiculous arguments Pro-Global Warming people put out. But this...is sort of intriguing.
 
What? This is a good example of what I can't stand. I don't buy into man made global warming and I am generally a conservative, but why do you have to be such a disrespectful asshole to those that don't agree with you? Sure there are a few wack jobs out there that can get me pretty heated, but other than that, people just need to chill and be respectful that there are people who aren't going to agree with them.
 
You're no better than the "liberal fucks" you're yelling at. There are assholes on both sides, don't be one.
As to the OP, sweet site. I hope people stop the partisan arguments and 'cool down' (haha) on this issue. Sure it is something that needs to be addressed, but in a method that will actually heed results. And that is not fighting, rather, forming policy from effective discussion and science.
 
that kids a douche, but he's got a point

everyone jumped on the global warming bandwagon when inconvenient truth came out, it was the new cool thing

and then everyone jumped on the "global warming is fake" bandwagon, because now it's the new cool thing

when really, the vast majority of people have no idea what they're talking about and just follow along like sheep
 
i am more on the side of the pro-man-made-climate-change. but of course there are arguments in any direction.

but now, just for my region (austria/tirol): what will change? we have a ski resort with a slope directly into the village (1000 m below the main resort) and it is still easily possible to ride all the way down almost the whole season. at worst, it will be impossible to ride to the village in 30 or 40 years, oh god, you have to take the gondola, huhuh.

and next, the husband of my mothers cousin is a mountaineer and does a lot of stuff up there in the glaciers and he says that there is one glacier that is melting and a 3 ft wide track/road is now visible. definite proof that it was way warmer in the alps at some time in the last 4-500 years and nothing happened. the animals are still here (except for bears and wolves, but this had other reasons, though still man-made ;) ), humans survived and nothing changed much. of course this is just a regional perspective.

BOTTOM LINE: lots of arguments pro/con, but what are serious and proven consequences of whatever is going on right now? take just haiti/chile and that other big earthquake back in 2004, its not like everything is caused by temperature changes. people have to keep a neutral level, not just jump from one bandwagon to the other.
 
yes but from what i have read, it sounds like the worse it gets, the faster it accelerates.

certainly bandwagon jumpers are idiots. and people like gore dont help saying WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, and then turning around and flying about in his private jet. but skeptics often do the same thing in the opposite direction.

it would be incredibly naive to say the earth ISNT warming, regardless of cause. and the fact of the matter is would you rather be wrong, save money, and face serious climate problems, or be wrong, spend some money, and be ok regardless.

btw in before woozy goes crazy about how fake GW is, and types 10 page essay responses.
 
^^ right, the thing is getting warmer, but we should try to keep our emission levels were they are now / keep the reduction rate we have now (in certain countries).

people tend to try to do too much and this never works. build solid energy/transportation means that can work in 20 years and then you can look for the next stuff, like someone said earlier, right now its just "kiss a whale, or we die" or "kill a whale, noone cares, GW is bullshit" all the time.

a middle/neutral opinion wouldnt hurt here, imo
 
exactly. and we really should be researching alternative energy anyways, its not like coal, or oil, are going to last forever.

i was reading some crazy thing about fuel made from algae the other day, ill see if i can go find the article.
 
Definitely agree there, if you do not believe in man made climate change, that is okay, but we are certainly running out of the natural resources that provide much of our energy. If not for helping the climate, research in alternate energy/fuel resources now at least helps smooth the transition period to which we must operate on new energy sources. It is going to happen eventually, and the sooner we commit to it, the less harsh the transition will be.

I think this thing is pretty cool, now just to find a way to efficiently scrape hydrogen from everything it is always attached to.

flash_video_placeholder.png

 
I would just like to compliment NS for this thread. All but 1 post has been intelligent and not jumping to conclusions.

Thank you! It's a breathe of fresh air.
 
true, and one thing related with this whole "alternate fuel/energy" thing bothers me and that is .......tatatatatataaaaa....:

fuckin oil producers/car lobbyist repressing alternate engines since their invention. come on, ferdinand porsche created a hybrid back in 1900 or so, noone can tell me (with the progress in technique everywhere else) that humans wouldnt be able to produce a functional, cheap car with hybrid or electro technology by at least 1970 or so. either noone cared or noone could afford to invest in it with oil industry booming. either way it sucks, and now that we can see natural ressources getting to an end, we have to "hurry" kinda
 
Educated scientists do make some ridiculous claims. I don't trust them, they're too smart. I think I'll believe the politicians, they're an honest bunch
 
And just to post whore, things in nature follow EXPONENTIAL models, not linear. So to whoever posted the worse it gets, the faster it accelerates is correct. This will happen until a mass extinction and plants grow take enough CO2 out of the air to offset the change in CO2. I don't know about the NO2 though, but I'm assuming the Methane will absorb enough energy to convert into CO2
 
look for 'who killed the electric car' doco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F)

Tangent alert:

electric cars did not provide manufacturers with as many opportunities for accessory profits (lacking technical term here) -- e.g. an internal-combustion engine is a dirty thing that needs oil changes, fuel filters, oil filters... roughly translated into high(er) maintenance costs that generate profit for the car manufacturer compared to the cleaner alternatives.

even if you could sell the electric car for a higher initial profit, it lacked the ability to generate more profits down the road.

 
exactly. and people love to complain how "its so expensive" to find alternative energy now. well yeah, when you have to rush to find something before we run out of oil and coal, its certainly not going to be cheap. was that really 1900? think about how far we could have been by now...
 
Sure global warming might not be mad made and not entirely our doing....but the earth IS getting warmer, natural trend or not.

The question is, can you SERIOUSLY think that pumping billions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere every year doesn't have some sort of adverse effect?
 
yeah, i looked it up to confirm my statement (i heard it somewhere before) and it was in fact 1902 that he presented a fully working hybridcar. of course the batteries were heavy as shit and thus the whole car, but in fuckin 108 years of progression there is yet to be a cheap and efficient hybrid car (or electric car for that matter).

of course there are some examples, like the prius, but if it was perfect, then we would see more of them.
 
to think that a planet that has been around for billions of years is going to be destroyed by cars/factories that have been around for 100 years is really fucking ridiculous. its amazing at how small of an affect people have on this earth and how once we are gone, nothing will have changed. the whole people causing global warming ideal is straight retarded and to think that it is us causing it, deserves a smack in the balls. warming and cooling trends happened before we were here and will continue to happen after we are gone. sure its making OUR quality of life better for being eco-friendly (air quality, water quality, etc), but the earth and its processes are always going to prevail... unless we blow it up.
 
i think what you've mixed two different points. The first, which i agree is true, is that the planet is extremely resilient and that it will be alive and well for a long time after we're gone.

However, the claim that we have had a small effect on the planet is egregiously false. We(Homo sapiens) are responsible for the largest mass extinction since the events of the Cretaceous period 65 mya.

It's more than just our cars-- we have had an impact on the environments we live in for over 100,000 years. It wasn't until 10,000 years ago that we really started to cause trouble.

Here's what i think you overlook in your analysis of our capacity for impact:

humans do not have to interact with other species for survival, and can manipulate other species for their own use

humans do not have to adhere to the ecosystem’s carrying capacity, and can overpopulate

So here's the question that arises from your conclusion:

If we are at war with the planet so to speak, and that as a result of our actions, eventually we kill ourselves off. Assuming the planet & its processes remain; could it be the case that the bio-diversity that remains(through our influence & natural selection) is inherently 'at war' with the planet as well.

I probably want to draw that out a bit -- but I'm thinking about the results of human introduced species and the effects invasive species have on the local environment: The above question is almost whether all that remains post-human will be 'invasive' species that compete with everything to be the lone 'owner' (in human terms) of the earth.

 
You really that stupid to think humans had only a small effect on the planet ... ? I don't care how much popular you're on this site or how you're going to downgrade me after that but you're just ignorant.

I'm not saying this planet is going to implode any time soon, but we're not helping it thats for sure. To believe we have no impact (or so) on our environment is just plain stupid.

Like it's been said before, you should stop listening to politicians and start reading what 99% of the world scientists have to say; they know this shit way better than either you or I.

I'm too wasted to go further but right now it's people like you who make me sick, not what I drank 2h ago.
 
99% of "99% of so and so say" statistics are probably intended to be taken as a synonym for "the majority of so and so say."

Wiki:

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that

human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate

change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on

climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized

countries.[27]

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association

of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28],

no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings

of human influence on recent climate change.[29]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all

countries but the United States[30][31][32] often state that there is

virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of

human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most

scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or

highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context

of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is

based on facts and not on opinion polls.

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore

revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of

Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[33]

distributed by the Heartland Institute included at

least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors"

of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[34]

Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their

names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that

the scientsts "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that

their names be removed."[35]

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was

presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad

consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a

discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to

make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations'

emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the

most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[36]

The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists

as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning

to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most

distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel

laureates in science."[37][38]"

 
my comment made above was only about global warming and carbon emissions. for some reason a lot of people who believe we are causing this warming trend think that we have had enough impact in the past 100 years to do so. reality is, is that this warming is the earth's natural process and that our pumping out of emissions isn't going to lead to the destruction of life. the earth will keep doing what it is doing regardless if we still all drive cars with 15mpg or electric cars with 150mpg. it will improve our and other species' quality of living (as i stated above) but to think we are on the cusp of either saving or destroying the earth from global warming is retarded.
 
I dont think any reputable scientist has stated that "the world is going to end" if emissions aren't cut down, they're saying the same thing that you're saying... life will be worse if we don't do something about it.
 
Not another thread. Jesus. anybody who believes al gore cares about the environment should use their brain, stop smoking cocaine
 
melting of the ice caps, intensified hurricanes and storms, intensified temperatures and weather... i believe these were all things that people claimed would happen if we don't start driving hybrids...
 
Don't know about you but I have no problem living like these two guys

waterworld-20091021001640428_640w.jpg


Always get to swim

mad-max.jpg


I can kill whoever the fuck I want to when I want.
 
All these god damned climate deniers. There's a motherfucking consensus. Why would anyone want to debate the fact. Its true it's proven. You are not allowed to try and debate al gore. He's right you're wrong, he won the nobel prize and you didn't.

He's my hero
 
ok i believe that global warming is a natural occurence, but that humans are also contributing to this phenomena and speeding up the process. i have done numerous school reports on this subject and i have yet to been shown something that will take away my feeling of "global warming is real"
 
I've no idea if that was sarcasm or not but you're spot on buddy...

btw, the more I'm reading you guys the more I think most of the US deniers are because of Al Gore. The guy was running for Democrats, therefore he's evil, therefore he's wrong, therefore whatever "fox news" or such are telling me must be true because there is NO WAY I could agree with a democrat. And then brainwashing................................. till you go full retard...................... and never come back.

Yeah I know thats a fast asumption and a cliche aswell.. But hey who knows :p

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top