Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[HempKat]

It's cold as fuck.
--
I don't keep up to date with this subject, because I believe in humanities inability to change on such a large scale. Take changing laws as an example. If we can't even get that right, how do we expect to change the world.. *sigh*

When it comes to earth's natural cycles, we are fucked.

Greenhouse effect is real. Even if you don't buy into all the scientific data.. You can't deny that Co2 increases heating. You can't deny humans produce way to much Co2. If you have a simple mind you can stop there.


I think HempKat said it best. Unless you believe that humanity(everyone in the whole fucking world) is going to change. Then you should worry less about what "we" need to do, and more about what you are going to do when it's to late to turn back.

I think it will take a major catastrophe(Millions dying) for people to make a change. Anything short of every person's life being significantly affected just won't have a enough of an impact..

You can tell someone how bad their lifestyle is all day, but until they are at rock bottom they aren't (usually) going to change. You can use that analogy for this case.


Where the fuck is jesus? Isn't he coming back? We are definitely going to need some help with this one.

--
Disregard evidence all you want. You can choose to accept or disregard that humans have the ability to influence our planet's atmosphere.

Honestly, I have zero hope for a voluntary change to humanities lifestyle.

No one is going to change to fuel efficient cars, unless gas prices are fucked.. Hmm

No one is going to change to a new energy source, unless oil prices are fucked.. Hmm.. might be on to something here. Governmental reverse psychology.

Humanities collective ego is way to fucking big. We need a disaster to set this course back on track.

By "No one" I mean enough people to make a difference.

It's sad but true, unless something truely tragic happens that can be clearly linked to Global Warming, not enough will get done. The only thing short of a tragedy would be a substantial and prolonged (multiple years) rise in the price of fossil fuels. Like gas at $10 per gallon in the US and about $16 - $20 per gallon in the UK. Although a hike in gas prices like that would likely lead to alot of little tragedies like people dying of starvation as those cost of everything rises or people freezing to death in winter and suffering from heat related problems in the summer.

I say this because on a smaller scale we've already seen this in the US a couple of years ago when the US saw $4+ per gallon gas. We did good in response at first. Some companies made important advancements on alternative energy vehicles. Lots of companies started cleaning up their act to become more efficient. People made changes in their lifestyles to conserve more fuel. People stopped buying fuel guzzling vehicles so much and began demanding car manufacturers produce more efficient cars.

Then the gas prices came down after just a short time being so high and the vast majority of people went right back to thier old ways and there old inefficient vehicles. Sure some of the improvements stayed, companies are still becoming greener, there are some better options for fuel efficient cars and electric cars are starting to hit the market more. Unfortunately not enough to make a difference that will be meaningful. If we put out 30 billion tonnes of CO2 before then maybe now we only put out 28 or 29 tonnes.

What needs to happen is for OPEC to disban and oil exploration and extraction to stop. No more fossil fuels, period. Screw carbon taxes and Cap and trade. The problem is that means the big money in the world will have to get off their wealth and fund substantial changes such as setting up an infra-structure for hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles and for electric vehicles, without promise of it being profitable in the short term. This isn't going to happen though because greed has consumed the people behind the money. The don't give a damn about the kids or grandkids.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You are confusing politics with liberty and freedom.

You will be signing up for your carbon ration card?

What do your eminent scientists say we should do to fix the co2 'problem'?

Why are you unable to separate "acknowledging the situation exists", and advocating political solutions.

There are many options short of taking away people's freedoms or taxing them extra.

A free market, educated about the reality of the situation, for example... Many people would be willing to voluntarily punish polluters and reward problem solvers with their spending choices, If they weren't being fooled into thinking the situation was a hoax.

There are companies working on extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and converting them into gasoline and diesel... Companies developing paint on solar film... Companies working on utilizing biological mechanisms to exponentially increase the efficiency of solar cells...

But nobody is going to bother, if they get lied to and tricked into ignoring the situation or relying on the government... Either extreme is usually where the asshats gravitate.

What's wrong with being reasonable, analyzing all the available info, recognizing which parts of the science are valid and important, and looking to ourselves and the ingenuity of our inventors and entrepreneurs?

Beats the hell out of looking to the government to save us, or ignoring the situation until the oil runs out, Brazil dries up, and the Canadian winters are rainy?

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Yes well we can agree on the new technologies aspect.

I still see this as a catalyst for change in a positive direction.

I am setting up my own solar systems, educating people of the benefits of bio-char and growing my own food and herb. Apathy isnt in my nature. Neither is surrendering my rights to a bunch of control freak scum.

Your comments on oil companies are way off the mark. The elite own the companies and are going all out to pass the carbon tax. The reason is obvious. Higher price on a barrel of oil. They dont really care about the money. Its just their weapon of choice in destroying the middle class.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4249096/Call-for-higher-petrol-prices

 

[HempKat]

Weather is indeed trivial in the larger topic of global climate change.

Tell that to people that died in flash floods and hurricanes and typhoons in the past couple of years.

I get the point you're making and agree with it to some extent, but to say weather is trivial just seems wrong.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Tell that to people that died in flash floods and hurricanes and typhoons in the past couple of years.

I get the point you're making and agree with it to some extent, but to say weather is trivial just seems wrong.

not that weather is trivial in general, but that in considering trends in the climate, individual weather events are not as important as 'how the big picture is changing and over what time frame'.

To individuals in areas experiencing the extreme weather events that 'should increase' in a warming world, I am positive they are anything but trivial.

 

[sac beh]

Well, on the bright side...

No one has brought up 9/11, UFO's, NWO, chemtrails, specific political parties, racist rants, sexism, or much personal attack at all. An achievement for a climate change-themed thread going on 8 pages.

Still, the blind anti-science sentiment is puzzling. I'm glad people generally set aside this sentiment in growing threads, or else it would be hopeless to discuss something like plant nutes. But I see a lot of people giving and accepting good growing advice without politicizing it.

 

[grapeman]

Anyhow... despite the tree ring proxies being perfectly credible as evidence... that is but one piece in the jigsaw puzzle, and in no way foundational to any house of cards.

“At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy… Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a ‘reconstruction’ of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the ridges principally record CO2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake, and other local factors… In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This data set gained favor, curiously superseding a new and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures."

Research that. Google is amazing.

And if that isn't enough, try reading the new wikileaks docs wherein it is openly discussed (Governments thought these were going to stay secret) on how to split the booty from the carbon tax scam.

I'll take my critical thinking skills over yours anyday.

And who's to say that a bit of warming is a bad thing??? Bigger crops and more abundant food. Oh? did you see the article where they had to admit the antarctic is growing in ice and not shrinking? Of course not. That doesn't fit the agenda.

You lose all credibility when you claim that changing our entire energy structure to force us to use MORE EXPENSIVE green energy is the way to go and NOT more expensive.

I live in the US sw, and they can't even make these new solar plants pencil with 1/3 of the cost in tax credits. The developers are now petitioning the government for an outright grant... up front money to build the plant. Why?? Because these projects make folks like you come in your pants because you think you are saving a lizard somewhere when in reality are making energy MORE expensive. You see, they have to sell this energy on the open market. They cannot do so without subsidies, grants or laws making us citizens pay more for their dreams. I don't want to pay for their or your dreams. If you can't even accept the fact that green energy is 30 to 50% more expensive, then you have zero credibility. Do you even wonder why the POS state of Calif considering moving their green energy requirement back at least 5 years?

What about Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara in his resignation letter to the "American Physical Society".

"Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal"

That pretty much sums up E. Anglia University's studies to date. And M. Mann's also. Those whores will say anything to keep the money coming in to their coffers.

Yeah I know, you think Hal Lewis is a crank to point out that all this bullshit science is skewed to show a favorable outcome to keep the grant money coming in so as to continue to pound us clear thinking people with enough bullshit for long enough that we finally give up the ghost. It ain't gonna work.

You probably never read this or knew about it since it was not reported on nbc, cbs, abc, msnbc or cnn, the cheerleading squad for the scam that is global warming.

And don't get me started with the relationship between this administration and GE...... more of the same bullshit and the bullshit wind turbines ge makes.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

And who's to say that a bit of warming is a bad thing???

...

people that died in flash floods and hurricanes and typhoons in the past couple of years.

To the above, I'd like to add the people who died in the forest fires in Russia and starved because the drought ruined the crops.


-----------------------

My points stand in spite of your longwinded drivel.

Governments obviously spend tax money... did you expect it to be hoarded?
Did I ever endorse any tax?

How would Extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and converting them into gasoline and diesel require infrastructure change? How would plug and play grid compatible solar power systems require new infrastructure? How is is a mistake to look to a properly educated free market for workable solutions?

Sell your propaganda to someone else. You're the only one loosing credibility.

Anyhow... despite the tree ring proxies being perfectly credible as evidence... that is but one piece in the jigsaw puzzle, and in no way foundational to any house of cards. Throw them out completely... there is MORE than enough evidence without them considered at all.

For your critical thinking to be worth fuck all, you have to have all the information.


Funny thing... before I learned everything I have learned... I too was a climate skeptic.

 

[HempKat]

not that weather is trivial in general, but that in considering trends in the climate, individual weather events are not as important as 'how the big picture is changing and over what time frame'.

To individuals in areas experiencing the extreme weather events that 'should increase' in a warming world, I am positive they are anything but trivial.

Like I said, I got the point that was trying to be made, I just balk at the idea of hearing weather called trivial. I tend to think of it as the greatest ongoing threat to mankind. Nor does it need to be all that extreme to have major impacts. Like right now a large part of the economy of the state of Florida hangs in the balance of will it get just a few degrees below freezing over the next couple of nights.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Complete with Fully Documented Hyperlinked References:

The Big Picture

Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming, and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.

The Earth is warming
We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming.

And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 4 hottest calendar years on record. In fact, the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010, according to NASA GISS data. Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not magically stopped warming.

Humans are causing this warming
There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming, mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Based on fundamental physics and math, we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades. In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them). Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming.

There are numerous 'fingerprints' which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed. Climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of accuracy, verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change.

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries.

The warming will continue
We also know that if we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, the planet will continue to warm. We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2–4.5°C of warming. And we're headed for 560 ppmv in the mid-to-late 21st century if we continue business-as-usual emissions.

The net result will be bad
There will be some positive results of this continued warming. For example, an open Northwest Passage, enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers), etc. However, the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives, by a long shot. We're talking decreased biodiversity, water shortages, increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity), decreased crop yields due to these impacts, damage to infrastructure, displacement of millions of people, etc.

Arguments to the contrary are superficial
One thing I've found in reading skeptic criticisms of climate science is that they're consistently superficial. For example, the criticisms of James Hansen's 1988 global warming projections never go beyond "he was wrong", when in reality it's important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes, and what we can learn from this. And those who argue that "it's the Sun" fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. And those who argue "it's just a natural cycle" can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming, nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.

There are legitimate unresolved questions
Much ado is made out of the expression "the science is settled." My personal opinion is that the science is settled in terms of knowing that the planet is warming dangerously rapidly, and that humans are the dominant cause.

There are certainly unresolved issues. There's a big difference between a 2°C and a 4.5°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and it's an important question to resolve, because we need to know how fast the planet will warm in order to know how fast we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. There are significant uncertainties in some feedbacks which play into this question. For example, will clouds act as a net positive feedback (by trapping more heat, causing more warming) or negative feedback (by reflecting more sunlight, causing a cooling effect) as the planet continues to warm?

These are the sorts of questions we should be debating, and the issues that most climate scientists are investigating. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population which is determined to continue arguing the resolved questions for which the science has already been settled. And when climate scientists are forced to respond to the constant propagation of misinformation on these settled issues, it just detracts from our investigation of the legitimate, unresolved, important questions.

The Big Picture
The big picture is that we know the planet is warming, humans are causing it, there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path, but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path, the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. In fact, the larger the uncertainty, the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty, but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved, and that taking no action is not an option.

 

[HempKat]

Well, on the bright side...

No one has brought up 9/11, UFO's, NWO, chemtrails, specific political parties, racist rants, sexism, or much personal attack at all. An achievement for a climate change-themed thread going on 8 pages.

Still, the blind anti-science sentiment is puzzling. I'm glad people generally set aside this sentiment in growing threads, or else it would be hopeless to discuss something like plant nutes. But I see a lot of people giving and accepting good growing advice without politicizing it.

Actually the anti-science thing isn't really all that puzzling. Unfortunate no doubt but not really puzzling. Science more often then not is funded by government and/or big corporations, usually to push an agenda. The corporations and governments have proven themselves corrupt and untrustworthy and so this distrust naturally carries over to any science such entities fund.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Like I said, I got the point that was trying to be made, I just balk at the idea of hearing weather called trivial. I tend to think of it as the greatest ongoing threat to mankind. Nor does it need to be all that extreme to have major impacts. Like right now a large part of the economy of the state of Florida hangs in the balance of will it get just a few degrees below freezing over the next couple of nights.

I'd call that extreme weather for Florida.

I'm not arguing with what you're saying... I guess I just don't see the point in splitting hairs. No... weather events are not trivial locally... but, local weather cannot be applied to a climate discussion.


I wonder if people realize that we've known about CO2's greenhouse gas properties long before climate change was on the politico/corporate radar... Or if they remember that the government's official stance was denial of AGW just a few years ago... and still is the official corporate stance.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Actually the anti-science thing isn't really all that puzzling. Unfortunate no doubt but not really puzzling. Science more often then not is funded by government and/or big corporations, usually to push an agenda. The corporations and governments have proven themselves corrupt and untrustworthy and so this distrust naturally carries over to any science such entities fund.

But every single comfort they are currently enjoying is due to advances made by that exact science which they distrust. It seems if one was trying not to be hypocritical in their anti-scienceism, they should not be posting on a computer, or driving a car, or riding a bike, or living in a house, or eat food that was not found wild, or ever see a doctor... etc... etc...


I think it has at least as much to do with a psychology of fear, and it being so much easier to believe anything which a)supports one's preconceptions and b)seems remotely plausible, than to face realities which make us too uncomfortable or seem too insurmountable... as it does with genuine distrust.

 

[HempKat]

I'd call that extreme weather for Florida.

I'm not arguing with what you're saying... I guess I just don't see the point in splitting hairs. No... weather events are not trivial locally... but, local weather cannot be applied to a climate discussion.


I wonder if people realize that we've known about CO2's greenhouse gas properties long before climate change was on the politico/corporate radar... Or if they remember that the government's official stance was denial of AGW just a few years ago... and still is the official corporate stance.

I don't mean to be splitting hairs either. I know perfectly well that what the weather is doing in a given region is dependent on more then just climate change and as such isn't a direct indicator of climate change. In other words just because the planet is getting warmer doesn't mean the weather across the planet will necessarily be warmer. It probably will be in places but in other places it will be colder. Global warming simply means there is a greater amount of energy in the atmosphere to drive the weather and make it more extreme but there are other factors that need to be in place as well.

As for what people realize I can't really say. What I can say is all this stuff was pretty well known and causing concern back in the days of Nixon which caused him to create the EPA. So I can say that many people have known this stuff for at least 4 decades.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't mean to be splitting hairs either. I know perfectly well that what the weather is doing in a given region is dependent on more then just climate change and as such isn't a direct indicator of climate change. In other words just because the planet is getting warmer doesn't mean the weather across the planet will necessarily be warmer. It probably will be in places but in other places it will be colder. Global warming simply means there is a greater amount of energy in the atmosphere to drive the weather and make it more extreme but there are other factors that need to be in place as well.

Well put... no arguments from me. (though I might add 'and oceans' after 'energy in the atmosphere')

As for what people realize I can't really say. What I can say is all this stuff was pretty well known and causing concern back in the days of Nixon which caused him to create the EPA. So I can say that many people have known this stuff for at least 4 decades.

Indeed.

Were you aware that In 1896 a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius published a paper in which he calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming? (talk about a guy that could say 'told you so')

That's well over a century ago.

AGW is old science.

 

[HempKat]

But every single comfort they are currently enjoying is due to advances made by that exact science which they distrust. It seems if one was trying not to be hypocritical in their anti-scienceism, they should not be posting on a computer, or driving a car, or riding a bike, or living in a house, or eat food that was not found wild, or ever see a doctor... etc... etc...


I think it has at least as much to do with a psychology of fear, and it being so much easier to believe anything which a)supports one's preconceptions and b)seems remotely plausible, than to face realities which make us too uncomfortable or seem too insurmountable... as it does with genuine distrust.

Well yeah when you put science all under one big blanket like that it seems hypocritical but not all science is funded by sources people distrust. Also alot of those things you listed we've had way before this era of distrust. So even though science brought them to us they did so back in a time when we trusted science more.

You're probably right about the hordes of people easily swayed by anti-science propaganda. They're probably just accepting what roughly fits their pre-concieved notions because that's easier then really understanding and forming an opinion logically. The ones pushing the anti-science thing though are mostly conspiracy theorist types that are clearly mistrustful.

 

[HempKat]

Well put... no arguments from me. (though I might add 'and oceans' after 'energy in the atmosphere')
Indeed.

Were you aware that In 1896 a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius published a paper in which he calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming? (talk about a guy that could say 'told you so')

That's well over a century ago.

AGW is old science.

Nope I didn't know about the Swedish Scientist but I'm not surprised back then you didn't have factories quite like we do now but there was still enough going on for someone observant to theorize about it.

You're right about the correction the energy is indeed in the oceans as well as the atmosphere.

 

[somoz]

Great posts on both sides so far, solid debate flaring here. Let's take a pause though and just use a metaphor that hopefully we all can relate to being that we are on a fucking GROW site.

So, when we build a room to create an ideal climate for our plants and fruits we try to dial in all factors so there are no environmental complications such as high humidity, mold, insects etc......let's use the plants as a correlation/parallel to us as humans and the room constructed as the earth/environment......just deducing from this simple metaphor----we should be able to posit that when the environment goes to shit there are consequences........plants die, grow retarded, hermie, and make the environment hazardous...

let's apply that to the emissions, plastic, oil, waste, all being dumped down our grow room/environment and we should be able to come to a conclusion transcending the stats....just my approach.

 

[sac beh]

Actually the anti-science thing isn't really all that puzzling. Unfortunate no doubt but not really puzzling. Science more often then not is funded by government and/or big corporations, usually to push an agenda. The corporations and governments have proven themselves corrupt and untrustworthy and so this distrust naturally carries over to any science such entities fund.

The problem is that this preoccupation with government and big corporations isn't a rational, level-headed calculation of the interests behind certain programs and their possible effect. Its irrational fear, at least as presented in these threads usually. People rarely take a moderate position as you do. The popular positions are usually apathy or fear, because they're easier than accepting reality which almost always puts some burden of responsibility on us. I still contend that a general lack of critical thinking skills is the root of the problem. And I'm concerned for a society where people actually vote and make decisions in the same way they deal with this issue, politicizing it and relying on the fear of monsters and conspiracies to defeat the opponent.

On another note, I regret my hyperbolic comment about weather which seems to be causing confusion. It was meant to be nothing more than a restatement of the idea in my first post here.

 

[sac beh]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider a key global warming case over the right of states to regulate carbon emissions as a "public nuisance."

In a move that could significantly affect the U.S. approach to fighting climate change, the top court in the coming months will consider a lower ruling that allows states and environmental groups to sue utility companies under federal public nuisance law to make them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.