Denying Global Warming

[Norstal]

in fact from 2007 to 2009 we saw a 0.9 degree temperature DECREASE.

Any change in mean temperature is bad. If that were to change by one degree more, it would be catastrophic as it would disrupt homeostasis. A change by .9 degree (celsius?) is no laughing matter.

[Vazdania]

I believe climate change is happening, but I'm not convinced that improving the environment should come at the expense of the economy. I will take more technological progress/jobs being created over higher energy costs and prices because of punitive regulations such as cap and trade. Doing so puts western nations at an even further economic disadvantage to developing nations, which refuse to follow such a scheme.

There is still not a single renewable energy source that is as reliable as fossil fuels for personal transport. I believe in the free market's ability to meet the demands of consumers more so, than the government's ability to force everyone into adopting "green" energy.

Actually fossil fuels (especially coal) have been proven to provide a net loss to the economy because of the damage it causes environmentally and to people's health. Switching to some of the supposedly less efficient forms of energy generation would have a lesser loss economically and environmentally.

Source

As you can see, the externalities are sufficient to triple the cost of coal power, if they were reflected in its price. If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, solar photovoltaic, and on par with solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly). Suddenly coal doesn't look like such a good deal

whether or not coal makes a net loss in the economy, meh...what I do agree on is we need a new source of energy. The problem with many alternatives are the initial cost is to high, OR the average daily KWH output is not high. Solar for example is to high in intital cost and if not done on a large scale, provides not alot of KWH.

sources: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02 ... and-solar/

[Vazdania]

in fact from 2007 to 2009 we saw a 0.9 degree temperature DECREASE.

Any change in mean temperature is bad. If that were to change by one degree more, it would be catastrophic as it would disrupt homeostasis. A change by .9 degree (celsius?) is no laughing matter.

Not neccisarily, without a change in temperture plants would not be forced to adapt to thier enviornment.

[Bengera]

Are we impacting it? Most likely. Did we start it? Who knows.

[Vazdania]

in fact from 2007 to 2009 we saw a 0.9 degree temperature DECREASE.

Any change in mean temperature is bad. If that were to change by one degree more, it would be catastrophic as it would disrupt homeostasis. A change by .9 degree (celsius?) is no laughing matter.

Temperature measured in degrees Ferinheit

[Vazdania]

Are we impacting it? Most likely. Did we start it? Who knows.

yes we are ^_^ so is anyother CO2 emitting thing

[Vazdania]

in fact from 2007 to 2009 we saw a 0.9 degree temperature DECREASE.

Any change in mean temperature is bad. If that were to change by one degree more, it would be catastrophic as it would disrupt homeostasis. A change by .9 degree (celsius?) is no laughing matter.

furthermore, sources for this claim?

[Norstal]

Any change in mean temperature is bad. If that were to change by one degree more, it would be catastrophic as it would disrupt homeostasis. A change by .9 degree (celsius?) is no laughing matter.

Not neccisarily, without a change in temperture plants would not be forced to adapt to thier enviornment.

A sudden (yes 2 years are too fast) for flora and fauna to adapt. That's my point.

And if it is in Fahrenheit, then it means the Copenhagen Accord is working.

[Metanih]

Stop spouting the .9 F drop stat. It means nothing in this debate. NOTHING.
Global Warming is a longer process than that. Factors such as el nino and other naturally cycling effects similar to that cause small scale (Time-wise) changes. Two years is small scale.

[Tubbsalot]

Ugh, these threads are always so depressing.

" It SNOWED yesterday! How can the world be warming?? LOL! Stupid scientists, ROFL!"

[Free Soviets]

Furthermore from 2007 to 2009 we saw a worldwide 0.9 degreee decrease in temperature

no. and even if it were the case, variability over a couple years tells you nothing about trends over decades.

[Free Soviets]

Stop spouting the .9 F drop stat. It means nothing in this debate. NOTHING.
Global Warming is a longer process than that. Factors such as el nino and other naturally cycling effects similar to that cause small scale (Time-wise) changes. Two years is small scale.

its even worse than that. 2009 was warmer than 2007. or, if we go by nasa's GISTEMP data, .01 C cooler. for those keeping score, that's .02 F.

[Camicon]

Arctic and Antarctic ice-cores, collected and analyzed long before this inane Global Warming debate popped up, show that the Earth has under gone periods over the course of hundreds of thousands of years and temperatures higher then our global warming alarmists claim would end life. CO2 levels have existed at levels far higher then what these same alarmists tell us we should be afraid of, and CO2 levels have rapidly increased in the past at rates far faster then our current one. Complex life survived these changes. Flourished even. Once complex life took root on Earth, a day has not gone by without it.

The fact of the matter is that the Earth has undergone, since it could be defined as we now know it, cyclic changes in temperature and atmospheric gas concentration. This is also evidenced by Arctic and Antarctic ice-core data. If the pattern holds true then the temperature of the Earth is increasing, regardless of what we try and do to reduce CO2 emissions. These are facts that have been around since the fifties.

The only evidence I take as unbiased with regards to the Global Warming debate are ice-core results. Analysis of them has long since been mastered, and the interpretation of their data is rock solid. There are no conjectures and guesswork that essentially every other method contains. There is no opportunity for the researchers to make a biased interpretation of data. Is sincerely don't trust a person who can't tell me what the weather will be like at my city in a month, but who has the gall to tell me what the global climate will be like fifty years down the road.

Every scientist that investigates and supports Global Warming has a professional stake that the results of their work support their views. They go in with the results already in mind, with the intent of proving their results, not analyzing them for what they are truly saying. It is their lively hood. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around the idea that man is causing the Earth to warm, and that this warming action will destroy Earth. Disprove the evidence of this theory, and the industry collapses.

That is not to say no environmental action should be taken to preserve the Earth. The fact is, fossil fuels are renewable if we have millions of years to wait around. For all intents and purposes it is a finite resource, and we are using it up at a very rapid rate. A different fuel source, preferably without any seriously harmful emissions, needs to be found. Current emissions from fossil-fuel powered technology do deteriorate the air quality around them. This is a health hazard that needs to be cleaned up, with steps taken to reduce any airborne smog. Industries that create harmful byproducts need to be carefully monitored, else we risk ending up with another Chernobyl. We need to stop meddling in the environment. We cannot put a natural environment into stasis. Change is a characteristic of life, and attempts to fight that (one of the core tenets of Global Warming alarmists) always end in failure, with unforeseen consequences often far worse then what we humans were trying to correct.

[Tubbsalot]

Oh, I forgot about that one.

" This has all happened before, and only 90% of species died out! That's not a problem! Why are we worrying?"

With a healthy dose of misconceptions.

[Free Soviets]

Hey, how about we take air from pre industrial revolution and measure the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide?

done and done. i'll even throw in some hydrogen isotope ratios too, free of charge.



also, note that our current concentration of CO2 is 392 ppm. so that would be way higher than it has been in 650k years.

[Camicon]

Oh, I forgot about that one.

" This has all happened before, and only 90% of species died out! That's not a problem! Why are we worrying?"

With a healthy dose of misconceptions.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but the Cretaceous was marked by sea level temperatures 17^oC degrees warmer then current levels. That's 42^oC boys and girls. And as you should all know, it takes a shit-ton (pardon the language) more energy to warm water then it does to warm air.

I never said we don't need to limit our impacts on our environment. What I said is that we are not going to be able to stop the warming and cooling trends of the Earth, that previous attempts to create an environment in stasis have failed miserably, and resulted in unexpected outcomes. We need to shift our focus from stopping global warming, to limiting the immediate and harmful effects we have on the environments around us.

[The Yorozuya]

Thus proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

All the emails show is that people are people. No data was jiggered, no results were fabricated. We're pouring tons after ton of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It isn't minor. And anyway, what would be the harm if we cleaned up the environment?

Cow farts are just as greenhouse-emitting as cars.. should we plug the cows' behinds?

but seriously, I think it's overblown by politicians using it for their own benefit, like "an inconvenient truth". It's a problem, but not that serious

You sir are an idiot

[Camicon]

Cow farts are just as greenhouse-emitting as cars.. should we plug the cows' behinds?

but seriously, I think it's overblown by politicians using it for their own benefit, like "an inconvenient truth". It's a problem, but not that serious

You sir are an idiot

You sir, are flaming. A forum rules violation.

[Free Soviets]

Arctic and Antarctic ice-cores, collected and analyzed long before this inane Global Warming debate popped up, show that the Earth has under gone periods over the course of hundreds of thousands of years and temperatures higher then our global warming alarmists claim would end life.

name one climate scientist who has claimed global warming will 'end life'. hell, you'd be hard pressed to find even a respected climate activist who would claim that.

The fact of the matter is that the Earth has undergone, since it could be defined as we now know it, cyclic changes in temperature and atmospheric gas concentration. This is also evidenced by Arctic and Antarctic ice-core data. If the pattern holds true then the temperature of the Earth is increasing, regardless of what we try and do to reduce CO2 emissions. These are facts that have been around since the fifties.

The only evidence I take as unbiased with regards to the Global Warming debate are ice-core results. Analysis of them has long since been mastered, and the interpretation of their data is rock solid. There are no conjectures and guesswork that essentially every other method contains. There is no opportunity for the researchers to make a biased interpretation of data. Is sincerely don't trust a person who can't tell me what the weather will be like at my city in a month, but who has the gall to tell me what the global climate will be like fifty years down the road.

you don't appear to know much about what the ice core data say, let alone about anything else involved in climate research. i mean, you don't even know the difference between weather and climate, for fuck's sake (hint - i can tell you with certainty that in the northern hemisphere it will be warmer on average in july than it is now, but i can't tell you what days to bring an umbrella then).

anyways, there is nothing in the ice core data that suggest we should be warming regardless of CO2 emissions. not a single damn thing at all in the slightest. like, you'd have to never have learned about them at all to even begin to think that.

[Tubbsalot]

Hey, how about we take air from pre industrial revolution and measure the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide?

done and done. i'll even throw in some hydrogen isotope ratios too, free of charge.

[img]

also, note that our current concentration of CO2 is 392 ppm. so that would be way higher than it has been in 650k years.

You are correct of course, but given the scale of that graph, I'm not sure it's the best way to demonstrate the difference in CO2 ppm between now and pre-industrial.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but the Cretaceous was marked by sea level temperatures 17^oC degrees warmer then current levels. That's 42^oC boys and girls. And as you should all know, it takes a shit-ton (pardon the language) more energy to warm water then it does to warm air.

I never said we don't need to limit our impacts on our environment. What I said is that we are not going to be able to stop the warming and cooling trends of the Earth, that previous attempts to create an environment in stasis have failed miserably, and resulted in unexpected outcomes. We need to shift our focus from stopping global warming, to limiting the immediate and harmful effects we have on the environments around us.

Your argument is that the Earth naturally changes temperature... so we should ignore that we are changing the temperature now, that this change represents a threat to our quality of life, and that we could prevent this change with relatively little effort.

Just because we're not godlike masters of the universe, with raw power flowing straight from our eyes, doesn't mean we should knowingly ignore a major threat which we are capable of preventing or mitigating. In fact, I'd imagine it should be just the opposite.

[Hamelburg]

Cow farts are just as greenhouse-emitting as cars.. should we plug the cows' behinds?

but seriously, I think it's overblown by politicians using it for their own benefit, like "an inconvenient truth". It's a problem, but not that serious

You sir are an idiot

Excuse ME for trying to throw a little humor into the thread. Thanks a lot, dude. as though plugging cow asses solves anything...

[Hamelburg]

Are we impacting it? Most likely. Did we start it? Who knows.

1. hell yes, we're impacting it. Not as badly as we'd be led to believe, but yes.
2. I doubt we started it, since the earth naturally changes over time and other factors would play into it. I'd say we sped up its effects with industrialization.

[Salandriagado]

Are we impacting it? Most likely. Did we start it? Who knows.

1. hell yes, we're impacting it. Not as badly as we'd be led to believe, but yes.
2. I doubt we started it, since the earth naturally changes over time and other factors would play into it. I'd say we sped up its effects with industrialization.

It's pretty fucking bad. If we continue at current rates, we'll hit the point where going well over 2 degrees (probably four or more) of warming is unavoidable well before the middle of this century.

[Hamelburg]

1. hell yes, we're impacting it. Not as badly as we'd be led to believe, but yes.
2. I doubt we started it, since the earth naturally changes over time and other factors would play into it. I'd say we sped up its effects with industrialization.

It's pretty fucking bad. If we continue at current rates, we'll hit the point where going well over 2 degrees (probably four or more) of warming is unavoidable well before the middle of this century.

I think the people of the world (esp. the US) need to start conserving their resources more. That's obvious. However, I don't think our government is competent enough to do the job right. If we all did what we needed to do, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now. (maybe...)

[Nazi Flower Power]

Denying global warming? Is that like denying the Holocaust? Count me in!

The whole issue of climate change has become so politicized that it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion. Anyone that questions the extent of human responsibility for climate change is automatically assumed to be opposed to environmental protection. They couldn't possibly have an honest reason for questioning it! God forbid! The Ministry of Propaganda says that climate change is a man-made problem. Anyone who questions it is a traitor to National Socialism and an enemy of the Reich! Death to the unbelievers!

Sometimes it's hard for people to make sense of all the different propaganda and evidence that is floating around, and it really shouldn't be a moral issue what people think of the science. The moral issue is how we choose to live, not what we choose to believe.