Manmade Global Warming: How A Lie Died

[Reiner]

We aren't arguing whether or not it is possible for man to alter climate. We are arguing whether or not our everyday activities have indeed altered it. To say that man over the course of 100 years has irreversibly changed global climate, while ignoring cyclical climatic progressions that occur over millenia, is not only absurd but arrogant.

Danno, you keep inventing whatever you want to imagine I said or did not say. I'm done wasting time with you.

And remember, ever killowatt your computer consumes replying to this thread is, in your mind, killing your planet.

<out />

[wakluvit]

Let's look at global warming from another perspective...why is it such a bad thing?

I support global warming. I will be able to plant my tomatoes earlier in the year. This Chicago winter is miserable, let's get rid of it.

I know that those are sarcastic examples but how come it is such a bad thing? If it will change the climate in ways that will increase crop productivity then how do we know if we should take such drastic measures to stop it? The population of this planet continues to rise and the majority of people live in poverty. Maybe we'll be able to go crops in places that were never possible before.

[Danno]

Reiner Wrote:We aren't arguing whether or not it is possible for man to alter climate. We are arguing whether or not our everyday activities have indeed altered it. To say that man over the course of 100 years has irreversibly changed global climate, while ignoring cyclical climatic progressions that occur over millenia, is not only absurd but arrogant.

Danno, you keep inventing whatever you want to imagine I said or did not say. I'm done wasting time with you.

And remember, ever killowatt your computer consumes replying to this thread is, in your mind, killing your planet.

<out />

What specifically have I "invented"? I have never heard any scientist say such climate change was "irreversible". Name one scientist who you have proof that they "ignored" the "climatic progressions that occur over millenia"? To assume scientists ignore such data is not only absurd it is arrogant.

[Danno]

wakluvit Wrote:Let's look at global warming from another perspective...why is it such a bad thing?

I support global warming. I will be able to plant my tomatoes earlier in the year. This Chicago winter is miserable, let's get rid of it.

I know that those are sarcastic examples but how come it is such a bad thing? If it will change the climate in ways that will increase crop productivity then how do we know if we should take such drastic measures to stop it? The population of this planet continues to rise and the majority of people live in poverty. Maybe we'll be able to go crops in places that were never possible before.

When such changes occur naturally they tend to take a loooooong time doing so. That historically has allowed plants and animals to adapt accordingly. If such changes were to take place much faster the adaptation process will be hindered, possibly with disastrous results. There is a theory that outside forces have influenced the climate of our planet at least a couple of times in the past. This theory postulates that, 65 million years ago, an asteroid impact annhilated 70% of species of plants and animals on Earth mainly because of their inability to adapt to the abrupt change. So far we only have one known ecosystem in the entire universe as an example to extrapolate data from... the Earth. This is it baby. We aren't the section 8 tennants of the universe. We don't get to trash this place and then move on to the next place... there ain't no next place.

[gmg77]

Occam's razor

Whats the most plausible hypothesis, climate scientists are risking their integrity and livelihood by manipulating data, maybe trying to get rich with carbon credits and green energy tech. companies. Or Industrialists are trying to preserve profits by denying the effect of the their massive CO2 emmisions? I mean these industries have a long history of spending profits to protect the community and environment before profits. cough cough johns manville/OMC.

Im not a climate scientist but tend to believe people whos job it is to study the climate over politicians, pundits and Exxon. Sure a minority of scientists disagree, thats just fine, the good thing about science is a consensus is usually met independent of politics and profit.

[wakluvit]

Danno Wrote:

wakluvit Wrote:Let's look at global warming from another perspective...why is it such a bad thing?

I support global warming. I will be able to plant my tomatoes earlier in the year. This Chicago winter is miserable, let's get rid of it.

I know that those are sarcastic examples but how come it is such a bad thing? If it will change the climate in ways that will increase crop productivity then how do we know if we should take such drastic measures to stop it? The population of this planet continues to rise and the majority of people live in poverty. Maybe we'll be able to go crops in places that were never possible before.

When such changes occur naturally they tend to take a loooooong time doing so. That historically has allowed plants and animals to adapt accordingly. If such changes were to take place much faster the adaptation process will be hindered, possibly with disastrous results. There is a theory that outside forces have influenced the climate of our planet at least a couple of times in the past. This theory postulates that, 65 million years ago, an asteroid impact annhilated 70% of species of plants and animals on Earth mainly because of their inability to adapt to the abrupt change. So far we only have one known ecosystem in the entire universe as an example to extrapolate data from... the Earth. This is it baby. We aren't the section 8 tennants of the universe. We don't get to trash this place and then move on to the next place... there ain't no next place.

Danno,

I'm sorry but scientists believe it takes a long time for wildlife to adapt but they are wrong. Just look at how they were amazed by the wildlife recovery after the Chernobyl disaster. Perform an internet search and you'll find numerous articles about the recovery.

The fact of the matter is, scientists are using historic data to conclude that the earth is warming. But they only have a limited about of data to use. That's because earth is 4.570 billion years old. If there were weather stations recording the same data during the last ice age then I would buy the argument. But the fact is 150 years of weather data isn't a drop in the hat compared to the overall picture. And that argument doesn't even bring up the fact that the scientists tossed out a lot of data to get these results. I would like to see the data they tossed but it has been erased forever. Also, most scientists depend on peer review to keep them honest. However, the climate change scientists actively attacked anyone that had a different opinion. Doesn't sound like pure science to me.