Author
|
Topic: Global Warming Denialist (Read 25406 times)
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
When it's politicians, not scientists, who are on the forefront of the global warming campaign I start to worry. You clearly weren't at the march meeting of the APS, where a special session featured scientists explaining the physics of air and sea convection currents as they related to GW, and assessments of various mitigation strategies. Every speaker treated GW as real and anthropogenic; while the mitigation part of the session did not justify those claims at great length, the earlier part did.
It's highly disingenuous to suggest that this is a politically based claim just because some politicians have claimed it.
Look, I'm not saying that global warming necessarily cannot happen and I think maybe it's true that it's happening to some extent now. What I'm saying is that leading scientists are not campaigning to take drastic measures against it. The politically based claim is that within a certain amount of years there will be widespread destruction based on the weak model that scientists have for temperature rising. I think under certain ideal circumstances scientists can create a decent model for what will happen during a "perfect storm" global warming system, but right now they don't have a firm grasp on why the global temperature fluctuates by .1 degrees every 50 years. I favor the idea of a liberal agenda more than the idea that we're globally in a lot of danger right now. It's a perfect way to increase government size and spending for the "good of the World".
You clearly don't get it. This isn't a political issue. This is a scientific issue. The only scientists who think GCC isn't real are a small collection of individual, inexperienced scientists who don't even specialize in climatology. Most of them are geologists.
And for your information, most major scientific groups (i.e. NAS) agree that if Earth continues to warm, the results will be catastrophic; sea levels rising, increased number of storms, droughts, pretty much everything you've heard.
And by the way, the global tempurature doesn't "fluctuate" 0.1 degrees every 50 years. For at least the past 10,000 years, the global temperature has remained close to steady, with slight random fluctuation due to the random nature of the world. A global increase of 0.1 degrees is actually a major change in temperature.
Thing is, this is a real issue. Chances are, if we don't take action, we won't go extinct; we're too advanced for that. But it will cause drastic changes. I mean a large number of civilizations crumbling (if not all civilizations crumbling), many major cities underwater, increased famine (even in developed countries), and above all world chaos. Imagine having to hold someone at gunpoint or even killing them so your son/daughter can eat. That is the type of world I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SweetSassyMolassy
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 271
|
You clearly didn't read my post. I never said that scientists don't think global warming is real, I'm sure they do firmly believe that and for good reason.
If you think this isn't a political issue, you're just being naive. Who do you think is behind this global going green idea, and who do you think decides when and how the drastic steps are to be taken? That's the big issue here, we all know that global warming is a scientific possibility, but you need to understand that a nation can't just drop everything coal-powered and switch over to green. In a lot of ways green energy isn't saving anything. I'm talking about the action that we're taking to prevent global warming and whether it's viable, not whether global warming can or does exist, as I said in the first line of my post directed at Death 999.
The graph you showed us had temperature rising and dropping over periods of ~50 years, hence the temperature during those times was fluctuating. I don't know how you can possibly make an accurate claim about temperature readings over the past 10,000 years, since the idea of accurately measuring temperature has only been around for less than 1,000. I also don't know why a rise in temperature of .1 degrees is a major change.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am not always understand about what you speak, unfortunately.
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
The graph you showed us had temperature rising and dropping over periods of ~50 years, hence the temperature during those times was fluctuating. I don't know how you can possibly make an accurate claim about temperature readings over the past 10,000 years, since the idea of accurately measuring temperature has only been around for less than 1,000. I also don't know why a rise in temperature of .1 degrees is a major change.
First of all, look at this page if you think you have an argument against what I'm saying. It goes into much more detail.
First, I guess I was wrong about tempurature not fluctuating. However it's important to know that the average temperature has never been as high as it is now.
Second, let me restate my wording: it is reasonable to assume that it is warmer now than it has ever been for the past 100,000 years. See this graph:
As for how they find the tempurature, I don't know exactly, but it has to do with looking at stuff that was around at that time and determining what the climate must have been like. Point is, they have methods that they use to measure the approximate temperature from thousands of years ago. The article I linked to goes into more depth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
Jaychant, going 100000 years back is still not enough to determine whether we have caused this global warming. Because ice ages happened before that, and periods of warmth happened between those ice ages.
I believe that the earth is warming up right now, but I don't think that we have caused it or that we can do anything about it, and even if we could, we're stupid enough to increase our population to its breaking point anyway, so the earth can't keep up with us.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Okay, see, scientists for the most part don't do policy. It's not their job. They make recommendations, and then politicians do policy.
The IPCC made this report, remember? They sent it to politicians and said, basically, 'this is real bad. Do something.' And that was, at least for that moment, the end of it.
So saying 'policies aren't coming from scientists' is a load of bullcrap. Whether or not it's true (and it isn't), it'd be irrelevant. It's like saying that you can't stop your car because your headlights are broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
Greenland used to be green pasture.
There isn't a big enough FACEPALM image to go with this.
Greenland was never "green". As a matter of fact, underneath the glaciers is basically just rock, so plants couldn't grow there even if it was warm enough.
When the outcasted Viking explorer Eric the Red found Greenland, he named it Greenland to get people to come to the place.
This is really one of the stupidest points denialists make. You can't say what something is like because of a name.
Jaychant, going 100000 years back is still not enough to determine whether we have caused this global warming. Because ice ages happened before that, and periods of warmth happened between those ice ages.
I believe that the earth is warming up right now, but I don't think that we have caused it or that we can do anything about it, and even if we could, we're stupid enough to increase our population to its breaking point anyway, so the earth can't keep up with us.
I would have EXPLODED if we were talking in person!
That time scale I gave you is the entire history of our species! How far back do I need to go before you believe we should at least try to stop GCC?!
You are seriously undermining the issue. If this warming trend continues, we will soon see the destruction of civilization, or in other words, the end of life as we know it! If GCC turns out to not be so bad but we take action, all that will happen is a possible small dip in our economy!
Do you realize that much of the "evidence" you see that GCC is a hoax is supported by Exxon, the biggest oil company in the US? They're worried about losing their business and so they're trying to make it look like there's still debate going on about the issue. This is exactly like when it was discovered that smoking is bad for you, and tobacco companies tried to hide it.
Only difference is, we're not just talking about some stupid people dying because they continue to make bad choices. We're talking about chaos on a worldwide scale. If you denialists keep slowing down our efforts too much, you will create such a world.
Wait, I don't follow. You seem to contradict yourself when you say "They make recommendations, and then politicians do policy" and "'policies aren't coming from scientists' is a load of bullcrap."
I also don't understand why it's irrelevant, the whole point of my argument is the often irrational bills that politicians pass in favor of the scientists' suggestions. I know that scientists first discovered the upward trend in temperature and left it to the politicians to decide on policy. My point is the policy itself, not who is doing the deciding.
To clarify my earlier post, I know that scientists first discovered the upward trend and made a decent model based on ideal circumstances. And I also know that global warming policy first grew from this problem, but that's where it ends. It wasn't up to scientists to decide on how we should combat this problem at the moment, and that's where I have a problem with this.
How about you stop arguing something that doesn't even matter. I don't see how it matters if the scientists of politicians make policies. The way I see it, you are using this little argument to steer clear of the real issue: you for some reason think it isn't a good idea to switch to green technology.
TO ALL GLOBAL WARMING DENIALISTS HERE:
Watch this video on YouTube along with its expansion pack. After you've watched it all, then if you're still not convinced come back here and post your arguments.
NOTE: The expansion pack is in the playlist.
video
playlist
EDIT: There was a book written based on these videos. Here is the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e10ZNpogv4
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 10:42:32 pm by jaychant »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
I would have EXPLODED if we were talking in person!
That time scale I gave you is the entire history of our species! How far back do I need to go before you believe we should at least try to stop GCC?!
To be precise, to the 1st ice age before the last ice age. This global warming and ice age cycle might be a 'natural cycle of the earth or its sun'. Something with the core heating up again or the sun burning hotter again. Besides that, you're wrong about the existance of our species. The Homo Sapiens has existed from 200000 years ago.
You are seriously undermining the issue. If this warming trend continues, we will soon see the destruction of civilization, or in other words, the end of life as we know it! If GCC turns out to not be so bad but we take action, all that will happen is a possible small dip in our economy!
Why? Sea level is projected to rise 2 meters per century, we have more than enough time to act but we need to act now.. but all our budget needs to go to improving the dykes around our country, and perhaps on moving people and cities to other higher regions! This is the most important because if we spend all our budget on CO2 reduction and new energy tech, and in the end it turns out that it was just the sun or the earth causing these temperature rises, all our lands will be flooded anyway. You see, trying to stop GCC costs a lot of money and resources, money and resources that could've went into making sure that GCC doesn't have a huge effect on humanity. For example we could start relocating people to higher regions, build bigger dykes, perhaps even terraform mars but all we do is make electric cars, build windmills and try to make cleaner power plants, plants, cars, and windmills which will all be flooded if the GCC turns out to be something else than just CO2 being exhumed in to the athmosphere.
Do you realize that much of the "evidence" you see that GCC is a hoax is supported by Exxon, the biggest oil company in the US? They're worried about losing their business and so they're trying to make it look like there's still debate going on about the issue. This is exactly like when it was discovered that smoking is bad for you, and tobacco companies tried to hide it.
Do you have any proof of these allegations? Besides that, we're not living in a country that is as corrupt as the USA. Exxonmobil has no political influence here!
Only difference is, we're not just talking about some stupid people dying because they continue to make bad choices. We're talking about chaos on a worldwide scale. If you denialists keep slowing down our efforts too much, you will create such a world.
I think that it might very well be that because of CO2 reduction addicts the whole world drives with electric cars, power is 100% clean, the air is clean and everyone can sit back and relax.. until we realise that GCC is continuing anyway and we're too late evacuating our cities, and a lot of people will die because of the fact that because of you people the world seems to think that we're fine aslong as we're reducing our CO2 emission to 0.
As you may have noticed, I'm not a GCC denialist but I think that our resources could be spent better than just to focus all out on CO2 reduction.
Start abandoning coastal cities in the coming 25 years. Evacuate valleys that might flood. Start researching how to live in space or on mars or the moon. So that when GCC isn't stopped by our attempts to reduce CO2, we won't all die.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
Why? Sea level is projected to rise 2 meters per century, we have more than enough time to act but we need to act now.. but all our budget needs to go to improving the dykes around our country, and perhaps on moving people and cities to other higher regions! This is the most important because if we spend all our budget on CO2 reduction and new energy tech, and in the end it turns out that it was just the sun or the earth causing these temperature rises, all our lands will be flooded anyway. You see, trying to stop GCC costs a lot of money and resources, money and resources that could've went into making sure that GCC doesn't have a huge effect on humanity. For example we could start relocating people to higher regions, build bigger dykes, perhaps even terraform mars but all we do is make electric cars, build windmills and try to make cleaner power plants, plants, cars, and windmills which will all be flooded if the GCC turns out to be something else than just CO2 being exhumed in to the athmosphere.
I think that it might very well be that because of CO2 reduction addicts the whole world drives with electric cars, power is 100% clean, the air is clean and everyone can sit back and relax.. until we realise that GCC is continuing anyway and we're too late evacuating our cities, and a lot of people will die because of the fact that because of you people the world seems to think that we're fine aslong as we're reducing our CO2 emission to 0.
As you may have noticed, I'm not a GCC denialist but I think that our resources could be spent better than just to focus all out on CO2 reduction.
Start abandoning coastal cities in the coming 25 years. Evacuate valleys that might flood. Start researching how to live in space or on mars or the moon. So that when GCC isn't stopped by our attempts to reduce CO2, we won't all die.
You're entirely missing the point. Global Warming won't just cause a little rise in sea levels. GCC will cause a much larger number of storms, an increased number of droughts, many crops failing, previously fertile soil that could be farmed before becoming unfarmable, all leading to intense amount of famine and chaos.
Like I've said before, I don't think GCC will cause the end of humanity. But it will cause a lot of us to die, and for those of us who survive, it will leave a permanent mark on human history. Somehow, just like after the European medieval period, the survivors of the crisis will come together and rebuild civilization. But think of yourself for once: Do you seriously want to risk your life, your children's life, all to prevent a slight dip in the economy?
Furthermore, no one has suggested we stop every other aspect of production and advancement to stop GCC. Free countries can't force people to move from their homes; if they want to move, that's their choice. But a bit of flooding is just not the big issue here. Before you argue any more, watch that video. That guy does a great job explaining why we should try to fight GCC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
And on TOP of that, the main thing we need to do to stop GCC is to cut back on fossil fuel usage -- something we're going to have to do pretty soon anyway because we're running out!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
Isn't there a mycon deep child secretly hidden in our earth's crust?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
Greenland used to be green pasture.
There isn't a big enough FACEPALM image to go with this. Greenland was never "green". As a matter of fact, underneath the glaciers is basically just rock, so plants couldn't grow there even if it was warm enough. When the outcasted Viking explorer Eric the Red found Greenland, he named it Greenland to get people to come to the place. This is really one of the stupidest points denialists make. You can't say what something is like because of a name. As someone who has actually studied Norse history, I think you should check your facts. The Norse who settled in Greenland farmed, grew wheat and fruit crops and raised cows in their pastures. One of the (several) factors which lead to the Norse dying out on Greenland was a shift to cooler temperature and shorter growing seasons. So, yes, much of southern (and west) Greenland was in fact green. Your argument is based on ignorance.
This is where you are wrong. Greenland is mostly a wasteland, with a small foresty southern tip. The norsemen living on Greenland found it incredibly difficult to find food, so they needed to maintain a delicate balance between maintaining their population levels and finding enough food and materials to survive. It was never a "green pasture" at all.
The reason their settlement failed was because of an artificial alteration of the landscape that hurt them, most of their alliances dying out, and an increase in sea-ice, as well as violence between them and the Inuit. Most importantly, however, they proved to be unable to adapt to their surroundings.
So no, Greenland was never a green pasture.
Furthermore, let me remind you that there is a major difference between the local climate of Greenland and the global climate of the entire world. A slight change in temperature 500 years ago in a local area is irrelevent to global climate change.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 03:19:16 am by jaychant »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
