Global Warming v. Global Climate Change

[Wikkiwallana]

Global Warming is a way to steal my money. This is natural climate change.-snip-

Climate Change, the world is just undergoing natural fluxuations of its own.

The climate is always changing and there is no longer any science on the subject. It is all armature opinion and politics.
-snip-
And when searches are done for the science for climate change it is never fully expalined nor are experiements carried out to demonstrate that this will have.
-snip-

I call BS.

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)---the main international body associated with investigating the phenomenon---says: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.....There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. [27]

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
http://www.realclimate.org/

Presently the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is very likely the cause for the rapid increase in global average temperatures over the past several decades. (Image)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion;

-snip-According to ice samples, it was hotter around 1000 AD.
...
*cough*theIPCCfudgedthegraphs*cough*

Source?

[Mosasauria]

I don't care, we can't sit around we still need to do something we can't continue living like how we do. This is something we can not take any risks about if we do it could be too late to change our way of life.

Who ever said humanity was even meant to live forever? Why not just let ourselves die out?

[Ifreann]

Hay guise, how can global warming be true? It's cold outside! ololol take that, science.

[Scientific socks]

The climate is always changing and there is no longer any science on the subject. It is all armature opinion and politics.
-snip-
And when searches are done for the science for climate change it is never fully expalined nor are experiements carried out to demonstrate that this will have.
-snip-

I call BS.[/quote]

You call BS on a few selective lines without offering any proof. The amature opinion is from people such as you. And the explaination is often as clear as you did in your reply to the critics. In other words no science is mentioned at all. Your BS call and post is just further proof of my point.

[Scientific socks]

People do not understand what climate change is. They just understand that the left will condemn them if they don’t believe and that they are meant to feel guilty. This will never lead to a possitive result

This is the illuminating line from the above. It's obvious that YOU don't understand climate change; please don't assume that no-one else does.

Do you care to explain the science of climate change deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases. Unless the mechanism behind an increasing temperature can be experimentally proven and you know what experiments have proven this, you yourself do not understand climate change.

I can explain ocean acidification, nationalistic requirements for energy diversification and the financial benefits of energy efficiency yet I do not believe you could explain what anthropogenic climate change is.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The terms are at least colloquially interchangeable, global climate change being the more accurate one. GCC can result in the warming of certain areas, and cooling of others.

/non-scientist

[Mosasauria]

This is the illuminating line from the above. It's obvious that YOU don't understand climate change; please don't assume that no-one else does.

Do you care to explain the science of climate change deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases. Unless the mechanism behind an increasing temperature can be experimentally proven and you know what experiments have proven this, you yourself do not understand climate change.

I can explain ocean acidification, nationalistic requirements for energy diversification and the financial benefits of energy efficiency yet I do not believe you could explain what anthropogenic climate change is.

You criticize him for not being able to explain climate change "Deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases", yet you cannot explain it in any other way yourself.
Pot meet kettle.

[Scientific socks]

Do you care to explain the science of climate change deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases. Unless the mechanism behind an increasing temperature can be experimentally proven and you know what experiments have proven this, you yourself do not understand climate change.

I can explain ocean acidification, nationalistic requirements for energy diversification and the financial benefits of energy efficiency yet I do not believe you could explain what anthropogenic climate change is.

You criticize him for not being able to explain climate change "Deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases", yet you cannot explain it in any other way yourself.
Pot meet kettle.

I never said I could explain climate change or believed in climate change, CO2 trading, CO2 taxes or anything else. Nor have I yet said I do not believe in those things. I am criticising the way climate change is debated. No one in this forum is capable of properly explaining the science of climate change yet there are strong views held about it due to the political influence. The actual science has become meaningless in climate change debates due to political beliefs.
Your post is just continuing that type of discussion. After mentioning that people here cannot explain climate change and you decide to use a personal attack. Your post in itself suggests you too do not know how to explain climate change. Yet you are willing to throw your opinion in and criticise those who dare mention your lack of knowledge.
I wont call you anything but I will challenge you to use scientific facts to back up your beliefs in climate change. If not you are just one of the many whom is willing to actively defend a belief without knowing what they are talking about.

[DMistan]

people will use whatever euphamism sounds simpler. corporate media, whatever sounds most dramatic.
mid ocean temperatures are rising by a few fractions of a degre, which may or may not be caused to some extent by human activity.
this in turn, does appear to be having semi-dramatic effects on long term weather patterns.
on the one paw, there is a temptation to over dramatize this. on the other, there are vested interests in denying it entirely.

the less obvious to do with weather effects of it, are plenty real enough.
demographics of famine and disease specifically, which are far more of a real and present danger to the web of life then war on any scale or of any nature.

habitat loss has also bearing on lowering of species diversity which is another factor of real and legitimate concern.

the main, if not only, and certainly primary, disagreement is over degree of influence human activity is having on it. most if not all of the denial that it does, is being sponsored by corporate vested interests.
of course that doesn't mean they HAVE to be wrong, but suspicious intent is suspicious intent.
and then all the attempts to deflect that doubt on the actual and honest science, again by those same corporate interests.

what i think is important to keep in mind, is that we DON'T NEED to use as much combustion as we do. and while that may not be the only factor, it is extremely likely to be the largest one. exacerbated of course by the unprecedented and ever increasing level of human population.

fossil fuel interests, even though knowing their stock in trade is limited, and in many cases unarguably harmful, wish to obstruct transition to cleaner and more sustainable methods. this is one instance where capitalism, or at least corporate capitalism, which has in the past been the chief means of overcoming obsticals to technological evolution, has become one itself instead.

Well said. Cameroi hit the nail on the head. We have been overly dependent on fossil fuels since before Nikola Tesla called for the development of renewable energy.
"No matter what we attempt to do, no matter to what fields we turn our efforts, we are dependent on power. We have to evolve means of obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations."
-Nikola Tesla

Forgive my appeal to authority, but I am tired the support for renewable energy being slandered by "vested interests" linking it by the most foolish guilt-by-association to the misdeeds of a few climatologists who are on all too high-horses.

Regardless of the impact humankind has on the climate, renewable energy is a good idea and has been that good idea on which no one will spend any real effort for over a century.

When the United States government funded a transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, private industry would not invest. Private industry invested only after the government's investment had borne fruit. One can defend private industry's reluctance to contribute by looking at the scale of that massive undertaking. Forgiving that reluctance, what we also see is that private industry offered no opposition nor hindrance. Once the concept had been proven by a massive national effort, private industry did finally invest in transcontinental railways.

What we see today is not simply a reluctance to contribute but outright subterfuge.

It has become painfully evident that the issue of renewable energy will not be addressed with any sincerity until the capital of which Tesla spoke is near exhausted, either by dwindling supply or insatiable demand. Such an imbalance will prohibit prosperity, even solvency, quite possibly stability, for a great many rendering the situation an economic emergency. When this issue is finally addressed, none of the private profit derived from exhausting that capital will be expended mitigating the situation. We shall see yet another example of private profit and socialized loss.

I have no patience for those who socialize their losses under the guise of being achievers and entrepreneurs. The capitalist in me can not abide it.

[Mosasauria]

You criticize him for not being able to explain climate change "Deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases", yet you cannot explain it in any other way yourself.
Pot meet kettle.

I never said I could explain climate change or believed in climate change, CO2 trading, CO2 taxes or anything else. Nor have I yet said I do not believe in those things. I am criticising the way climate change is debated. No one in this forum is capable of properly explaining the science of climate change yet there are strong views held about it due to the political influence. The actual science has become meaningless in climate change debates due to political beliefs.
Your post is just continuing that type of discussion. After mentioning that people here cannot explain climate change and you decide to use a personal attack. Your post in itself suggests you too do not know how to explain climate change. Yet you are willing to throw your opinion in and criticise those who dare mention your lack of knowledge.
I wont call you anything but I will challenge you to use scientific facts to back up your beliefs in climate change. If not you are just one of the many whom is willing to actively defend a belief without knowing what they are talking about.

I never said anything about my beliefs in it. Where are you pulling that from?
All I was pointing out was that you were criticizing him when you were no better.

To answer you question:
I get the facts from here and here.
I have yet to see evidence for anthropogenic global warming. One main reason is that the rate at which the Earth's temperature is rising was higher in the first half of the 20th century than the latter, when we burned more fossil fuels. However, this does nothing to discredit anthropogenic global warming. The only thing I want is some cold, hard facts. When I see that, I will change my opinion.

[Kruplyan]

Global Warming is a way to steal my money. This is natural climate change. According to ice samples, it was hotter around 1000 AD. Yes, I'm aware of the fact polar bears and shit will die. But thats what zoo's are for.

Documentary-that-will-be-automatically-labeled-as-biased-and-rigged-by-GOP-according-to-liberal-minded-foo supports my statements.

*cough*theIPCCfudgedthegraphs*cough*

Would you want to exchange your awesome home for a cage where people come to stare at you all day?

No, but what can I do? Cast a magical spell to stop my home from melting? I think global warming is a hoax. I support alternative energy so we can stop buying oil from others, not because I think we're destroying the planet.

[Kruplyan]

Global Warming is a way to steal my money. This is natural climate change. According to ice samples, it was hotter around 1000 AD. Yes, I'm aware of the fact polar bears and shit will die. But thats what zoo's are for.

Documentary-that-will-be-automatically-labeled-as-biased-and-rigged-by-GOP-according-to-liberal-minded-foo supports my statements.

*cough*theIPCCfudgedthegraphs*cough*

Damn, you caught us! *cues green helicopters over Kruplyan's house* Seize him!

I noticed you failed to say as to why I'm wrong...

[Kruplyan]

-snip-According to ice samples, it was hotter around 1000 AD.
...
*cough*theIPCCfudgedthegraphs*cough*

Source?

I'm sorry, but thats a major epic fail. I guess you didn't see the link.

[Siorafrica]

Thinly-veiled anti-creationist insults,rubbish,poorly made arguments and flogging a dead horse. Yep, the average thread. Come ON people.
*Well, now it is that I've made my cynical, misanthropical comment that probably nobody agrees with it's time I disappear.My English is getting worse, even though I'm a native speaker, must get out more, oh right, toodle pip.

[Promisance]

Data taken from the Antarctic Ice Cores. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

Note: provided image not taken from wiki, but from another site and it was used for the sake of expediency. Graph on wiki is not as friendly, but supports same data.

[Avenio]

Global Warming is a way to steal my money.

An interesting addendum on this; if you notice, very few scientists, whether they be climate, ecological or biological, are saying howwe can decrease our carbon emissions. They're just saying it needs to be done. Blame the politicians for 'stealing your money'.

This is natural climate change. According to ice samples, it was hotter around 1000 AD.

Ah, the Medieval Warm Period. I have an interesting graph to show you about that;

Look at the bump in the graph on the Medieval Warm Period; its relatively stable and has a nice gentle slope. (Indicating it occurred over a long period of time) Now look at the period of warming beginning in 1800. What differences do you notice?

Yes, I'm aware of the fact polar bears and shit will die. But thats what zoo's are for.

How shortsighted of you.

Documentary-that-will-be-automatically-labeled-as-biased-and-rigged-by-GOP-according-to-liberal-minded-foo supports my statements.

Though I have no critique of this particular documentary, it was largely modeled after an earlier British one by the name of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which the IPCC thoroughly criticizes.

*cough*theIPCCfudgedthegraphs*cough*

Nope. They didn't.

[Wikkiwallana]

I call BS.

You call BS on a few selective lines without offering any proof. The amature opinion is from people such as you. And the explaination is often as clear as you did in your reply to the critics. In other words no science is mentioned at all. Your BS call and post is just further proof of my point.

No proof, amateur opinions? While I may not be a professional climate scientist, I just gave you the positions of hundreds of them, perhaps thousands, and they are all saying the same thing: The Earth is warming and it's our fault.

Source?

I'm sorry, but thats a major epic fail. I guess you didn't see the link.

I saw the link, do you have anything more substantial than a youtube vid?

[Whole Conviction]

This is the illuminating line from the above. It's obvious that YOU don't understand climate change; please don't assume that no-one else does.

Do you care to explain the science of climate change deeper than the causation and effect assumption that CO2 results in temperature increases. Unless the mechanism behind an increasing temperature can be experimentally proven and you know what experiments have proven this, you yourself do not understand climate change.

I can explain ocean acidification, nationalistic requirements for energy diversification and the financial benefits of energy efficiency yet I do not believe you could explain what anthropogenic climate change is.

1) Actually, I do know quite a bit of the science behind climate change. The experiment to show CO2 causing heating is one so widespread and diverse that I did it in high school. It's been settled science for well over 100 years, LONG before any politicisation.

2) I disagree with you fundamentally that you have to understand the science in order to have an opinion. No, we don't. We have people to handle the science: they're called scientists. Despite claims by denialists, there is a consensus and it's very very solid, because the evidence is very very clear. No, I'm not getting my info from Al Gore. I get it from the scientists themselves; not 'a' scientist, but the scientific community in general.

Saying that I have to understand the whole thing before having an opinion on it is ridiculous. I don't need to understand the precise mechanisms of food becoming fat before I can make decisions about my diet, I don't need to explain how sunlight becomes energy for plants before I'm qualified to know when to shift my plants in and out of the sun.

[Free Soviets]

No one in this forum is capable of properly explaining the science of climate change

you're sort of new here, so you can be forgiven for thinking so. we've actually got a metric fuck-ton of people who really know their shit on this forum. on this or most any other topic. some of us are even working on dissertations in related areas.

[Sociobiology]

No one in this forum is capable of properly explaining the science of climate change

you're sort of new here, so you can be forgiven for thinking so. we've actually got a metric fuck-ton of people who really know their shit on this forum. on this or most any other topic. some of us are even working on dissertations in related areas.

yea but he's asking for an explanation of the whole thing which are not present on the forum.
try hear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

there are 11 parts and is probably the best description laymen I have ever seen.
it goes over history of climate change science, and older to newer data.

its also fun to seen as his position on anthropomorphic change changes as you get later and newer publications came out.

[Scientific socks]

you're sort of new here, so you can be forgiven for thinking so. we've actually got a metric fuck-ton of people who really know their shit on this forum. on this or most any other topic. some of us are even working on dissertations in related areas.

yea but he's asking for an explanation of the whole thing which are not present on the forum.
try hear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

there are 11 parts and is probably the best description laymen I have ever seen.
it goes over history of climate change science, and older to newer data.

its also fun to seen as his position on anthropomorphic change changes as you get later and newer publications came out.

lol good link. A qualified expert giving his opinion in a highly reasonable manner. Its a refreshing change to hear and far more along the lines of how society and our politicians should be dealing with the issue. Actually mentioning what the scientific experts did and not did is highly important. This is the kind of video that should be replacing the climate change politicial protestors.

[Sociobiology]

yea but he's asking for an explanation of the whole thing which are not present on the forum.
try hear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

there are 11 parts and is probably the best description laymen I have ever seen.
it goes over history of climate change science, and older to newer data.

its also fun to seen as his position on anthropomorphic change changes as you get later and newer publications came out.

lol good link. A qualified expert giving his opinion in a highly reasonable manner. Its a refreshing change to hear and far more along the lines of how society and our politicians should be dealing with the issue. Actually mentioning what the scientific experts did and not did is highly important. This is the kind of video that should be replacing the climate change politicial protestors.

He does a great series on the history of the universe that is simply wonderful, as a biologist I can honestly say the sections on biology are the most accurate video's I have ever seen, EVER.

although it is a shame there is even better research on abiogenisis available now.