Global warming poll

[metis]

I don't know of anyone who's life has been significantly impacted by Global Warming.

The increasing intensity of storms indicates otherwise, and this is largely due to the fact that heat is also energy, the latter of which tends to create larger storm fronts.

 

[columbus]

I grudgingly had to click "almost certainly" despite really wanting to click on "Definitely." I have to accept that there's always some chance of being wrong, if only intellectually.

Me too.
Although I have trouble understanding how anyone could fail to grasp the likelihood that sucking all those gazillions of tons of carbon, sequestered for millions of years, and pumping it into the atmosphere, while simultaneously cutting down vast swathes of the forests that remove carbon from the atmosphere will change the climate.

It also doesn't matter if the climate change is natural, human, or a combination. It's still going to result in massive human disaster and dislocations, which are most certainly going to result in war. Because that's what people do when they're stressed and scared. And the kind of war likely to result could very well trash the rest of the biosphere.

Not taking effective steps to head off the disaster looming is dooming the children to an Armageddon that has nothing to do with God or prophets.
Tom

 

[columbus]

The data is inconclusive.

But do you think that the risks to the kids are acceptable?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

But do you think that the risks to the kids are acceptable?
Tom

We need to take care of the environment regardless if we are causing climate change or not. But use fear mongering and scare tactics to try and trick people into doing it will not work.

 

[columbus]

We need to take care of the environment regardless if we are causing climate change or not. But use fear mongering and scare tactics to try and trick people into doing it will not work.

What's your suggestions?

I agree, media talking heads screaming that sky is falling seem counterproductive. People just stop listening.
But ignoring the looming disaster and maintaining the status quo risks leaving the kids being born today an uninhabitable planet.
So what do you suggest?
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

Scientists seem rather shifty and shady, so I'm not sure if I buy their consensus. But these fossil fuel lobbyists and their political besties on the other hand seem like pretty honest, trustworthy fellows.

H'yuk! Boy howdy...

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You guys talking about leaving behind an unimaginable planet. Let me tell you a story.

Humanity developed around 2.5 million years ago. At 1.5 million years ago, and ever since, we have been burning carbon from wood. No appreciable damage has been done to the Earth.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia
In case you missed it, this is nearly 1.5 million years of blowing smoke (mostly water and CO2, though websites I asked about this somehow give it lead and all sorts of other vile chemicals, probably to get you not to burn it) into the air. Far from choke us all to death, plants adapted to this, and CO2 is actively converted back into oxygen by plants.
What about global warming? Well, there are 25 reasons why carbon is not actually a factor in global warming, and #25 actually states outright that global COOLING is now happening, and this could have something to do with why they are are now calling it "climate change."

So, no, none of that stuff had any impact on the environment. But I'm gonna tell you a different story. This is the story about how in 50 years, our oceans have become filled with pollution. You see, I have a dad who was born in the 1950s, and he describes what recycling was like before the recycle, reduce, reuse movement.

1. Most things were made from metal, paper, wood, and clay. Very little was made from plastic. These things biodegraded, or just sit there inert.
   
2. There were local people called rag and bone men who would take the scrap metal you had and sell it to someone to forge it again.
   
3. Milk was in glass containers, and would simply be reused.

Okay, here's what happens now.

1. Thanks to concerned people mostly in LA and NYC and other out-of-touch big cities, we have now convinced most people not to give their trash to private collectors, but to a recycling center.
2. This center uses fossil fuel to run their electrically powered automated sorting system, blowing smoke into the air. We are going to assume this smoke is the same carbon smoke used for burning for centuries (as would be the case in a forge above where they burn wood or coal), but it may not be. In any case, this uses resources to do so.
3. This is assuming they are local. In many cases, we instead use diesel trucks (yay, lead into the air) to ship this trash across country, then we ship this over to China to be recycled. Not only does this also send boats to pollute the waterways, but in many cases, the plastic sent there doesn't make the trip and ends up in the water. And sometimes they're sloppy and it winds up as run-off. And here's the result.

You "concerned" people, are exactly the ones most responsible for destroying the planet! We could have just melted down plastic or burned it (it's just oil), but no, it's important to recycle!

 

[Pete in Panama]

...You've never looked at the data have you?...

Am not sure how whether my looking at which numbers can change how others settle their science but if anyone here can tell me the current average temperature of the earth's surface I'd be very interested. We know that it's 5,778K for the sun. For the moon the average surface temp increase (also reported as man-made) is "6 degrees Fahrenheit" over the past 50 years.

 

[Enoch07]

Am not sure how whether my looking at which numbers can change how others settle their science but if anyone here can tell me the current average temperature of the earth's surface I'd be very interested. We know that it's 5,778K for the sun. For the moon the average surface temp increase (also reported as man-made) is "6 degrees Fahrenheit" over the past 50 years.

And over the past 100 years? What about 200? Keep going 500 years etc.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

And over the past 100 years? What about 200? Keep going 500 years etc.

We have gone back hundreds of thousands of years in testing CO2 levels. We are seeing levels today that exceed the natural cycles the earth has produced over geological time.

 

[Enoch07]

We have gone back hundreds of thousands of years in testing CO2 levels. We are seeing levels today that exceed the natural cycles the earth has produced over geological time.

No, we are seeing higher levels than in recent history (less than 1,000,000 years). But the earth has gone up to 650 ppm in Co2 levels, and recovered naturally.

This isn't justification to continue to pollute mind you. But it is a sign that if we can manage Co2 levels better this is manageable. The sky is not falling.

 

[Ponder This]

The increasing intensity of storms indicates otherwise, and this is largely due to the fact that heat is also energy, the latter of which tends to create larger storm fronts.

"Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes. Climate models provide a glimpse of the future, and while they do not agree on all of the details, most models predict a few general trends."
The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards​

Read carefully, the impact of Global Warming on Storm Intensity is all predictive. In other words, it hasn't been experienced by anyone in a significant way to date. But I'm open to the possibility that there's some information I haven't seen. Let me know if you find it.

 

[Shaul]

Any anthropomorphic global warming is manageable and does not justify wholesale surrender of our personal liberties. AGW alarmism is a greater threat than AGW itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any anthropomorphic global warming is manageable and does not justify wholesale surrender of our personal liberties. AGW alarmism is a greater threat than AGW itself.

You must have quite a bit of evidence and peer reviewed papers that support this claim. Or, just maybe, is it just wishful thinking on your part?

 

[Shaul]

You must have quite a bit of evidence and peer reviewed papers that support this claim. Or, just maybe, is it just wishful thinking on your part?

It is called an opinion. Skepticism is no crime. But attempting to take away liberties without certain proof should be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is called an opinion. Skepticism is no crime.

That is not skepticism. That is denial. Skepticism is evidence based and the evidence supports the science. Also it is a very bad strategy to use such terms as "alarmists". That puts a burden of proof upon you. An actual skeptic would not make such a claim. He might ask questions but a proper skeptic does not make claims that he cannot support. That too makes you a denier and not a skeptic.

 

[Shaul]

That is not skepticism. That is denial. Skepticism is evidence based and the evidence supports the science. Also it is a very bad strategy to use such terms as "alarmists". That puts a burden of proof upon you. An actual skeptic would not make such a claim. He might ask questions but a proper skeptic does not make claims that he cannot support. That too makes you a denier and not a skeptic.

No, it’s skepticism. Alarmists are easy to spot. They want to take away liberties. They do it in the name of junk science.

Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is called an opinion. Skepticism is no crime. But attempting to take away liberties without certain proof should be.

So we can just ignore it then. Thanks. Good to know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it’s skepticism. Alarmists are easy to spot. They want to take away liberties. They do it in the name of junk science.

Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.

Science has nothing to do with liberties. That is politics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.

It could if there's an emergency.