[Kentucky]

I used to think it was all a left-wing conspiracy and that there is no such thing. But recently I have been researching it further and I am confident that human activity is fucking up the earth very badly, and if it is not stopped we will end up with some end of the world type scenario where we damage the planet so badly we can't undo the damage.

Does anyone here have a scientific background to argue either for or against climate change? As it is a liberal cause I am guessing alot of people will be against believing in it but I want a scientific argument rather than a moral or populist one.

[InternationPlayboy]

I think all these crazy hurricanes in the north east are a pretty good indication that the weather patterns are changing. But gay marriage, abortion, and gun laws are much more important right?

[speakeasy]

I strongly believe in it. I think the evidence is just overwhelming when you look at things like ice-core samples from Antarctica where you can see how much carbon dioxide has been building in the atmosphere over centuries. Those that oppose the idea are almost without exception economic libertarians who hate the idea of any regulation on industry.

[Branimir]

I think the human yet has too little knowledge about the earthclimate to know exactly what the reasons are for this climate change.
There has been always climate changes on this planet , whether it be the ice age or mood of the sun or sth. else.

Well then again , just looking at it logically, the fossil fuels basically are stored energy and sunshines, now we dig those up and release all of that into our atmosphere.
So just like the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy is never lost or burned up, but tranformed into other forms.
Regarding to this we seem to have released too much of it.... considering this climate change is human made.

[j r]

I think it's real, but I also think that lots of people would like to use it as an excuse to assert increased government control over the economy and over people's behavior.

The least disruptive and economically distortive thing that we could do would be to institute. carbon tax and feed the revenue into a fund that would be used to make whatever adjustments we need to make if shit starts going wacky. It would be especially good to phase out the income tax an replace it with a carbon tax. We won't do that, though.

[thegmanifesto]

I think our oceans are getting f*cked up for sure.

I heard you can't even get cod in Cape Cod anymore.

Every fisherman I have spoken with says the yields are decreasing as well.

[InternationPlayboy]

We just got a big storm a couple days ago. We found out it was from Vail "seeding" the clouds to create a storm. Pretty crazy stuff. Here's some more info on it.

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

Hopefully before things get real out of control we can figure out a way to fix it.

[Kingsley Davis]

A RVF member have a good write up on the subject on his site.

http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/...fecta.html

[Teedub]

I think you have to be extremely wary when they change it from "Global Cooling", to "Global Warming", to "Climate Change".

[durangotang]

Have you ever noticed how it used to be "global warming" and now it is "climate change." I believe in climate change - it is natural and the climate is always changing.

In answer to your question, I used to believe in it (global warming). I went to see An Inconvenient Truth three times just to take other people. That was back in my hating the neo-cons and thinking the democrats were better days of my early twenties.

I am totally disillusioned. Anthropogenic global warming seems to be a myth to totally tax and control all industry worldwide. It is the boogeyman reason put forth to get the desired outcome - and that is the first global tax. Al Gore is totally corrupt and stands to make billions through carbon exchanges if implemented.

Have a look at this video and let me know what you think:

Or listen to lord Christopher Monckton:

Michael Crichton even gave a terrific lecture to CalTech before he passed away about junk politicized science. It's worth a read.

[Therapsid]

In my opinion, climate change is real but it's effects are overstated.

By and large, if you live in a wealthy nation, natural disasters are just not going to hurt you. For example, superstorm Sandy caused havoc in the Northeast but because the U.S. is so rich, still has a good infrastructure, modern buildings and building codes and the like, the death toll was very low. New Jersey was utterly devastated by Sandy and millions lost electricity. Yet just about 40 people died in NJ from the storm. I don't want to trivialize any fatalities, but this is a very small number compared to the leading causes of death.

Think about it this way. The worst case scenario happens. Will Americans or Western Europeans starve? If there are more severe droughts, will people in the Southwest die from famine and lack of water? Nope. But it may mean food prices go up.

The reason most people are nonchalant about global warming is that they implicitly know that a whole host of issues, like the economy, jobs, health care, etc. matter more to their lives. Put bluntly, you have more to fear from prostate cancer, Chinese offshoring, and U.S. and EU fiscal insolvency than you do about climate change.

[BoiBoi]

Well, obviously none of us is really qualified to speak on the matter (if there are any scientists around, please accept my apologies), but if you think about what mankind has done to the ocean (eg garbage islands), the ozone layer, the animal wildlife or the shrinking of polar ice caps, glaciers disappearing, etc. I'm petty sure that we are fucking with our planet in a very bad way and that some generation will eventually pay the bill.

[Tuthmosis]

(03-28-2013 07:00 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Have you ever noticed how it used to be "global warming" and now it is "climate change."

They used to call it global warming, but then too many country-ass bumpkins would say, "if the globe is warming, why is it cold outside," not realizing that aggregate warming of the globe results in drastic weather swings--in both directions. They had to dumb it down to "climate change" so people got it.

All the bullshit that factories and industry has been pumping into water and air for the last couple of hundred years has surely fucked up everything. I don't care to debate how or what or where or when. That's what they want us to do, while they can keep doing what they're doing on the side.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Global warming is real. The case for anthropogenic global warming is far from resolved, but scientists have become the new priesthood so the sheep believe the pronouncements of the high priests as gospel.

Climate scientists model a system far more complex than what physicists study using methods that are inferior to the methods of physicists. As a physicist, I'm skeptical.

[InternationPlayboy]

(03-28-2013 07:13 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 07:00 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Have you ever noticed how it used to be "global warming" and now it is "climate change."

They used to call it global warming, but then too many country-ass bumpkins would say, "if the globe is warming, why is it cold outside," not realizing that aggregate warming of the globe results in drastic weather swings--in both directions. They had to dumb it down to "climate change" so people got it.

Great response!

[thebassist]

Of course climate change is a natural occurrence: we have had periods with levels of CO2 if I remember more than 16 times higher than pre-industrial levels, as well as periods with average global temperatures more than 10°C higher than what they are now.

But the fact of the matter is that we are changing the conditions of our planet at a rate never seen before. Case in point:



This is a pretty well-known image (known as a Keeling curve), documenting the CO2 levels measured from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, a place whose air is not affected by nearby sources of pollutions due to its relative isolation.

Pre-industrial levels were close to 280 ppm, compared to a current level of 380, which is only on the way up. I believe I remember my teacher telling our class that the change which occurred in 100 years would normally take 20,000 to occur naturally. To be honest, anyone who feels that this will have no effect on the environment, is, to put it bluntly, full of shit.

For now, lets just keep this argument concerning oceans and ocean biodiversity. While a certain degree of climate change may be seen as 'natural', as I stated previously, the rate at which it is occurring is unprecedented, and as such animals are unable to adapt. A direct result of increasing CO2 concentrations is an increase in the acidity of sea-water (due to the increased formation of carbonic acid, blah blah). As the G mentioned, fishermen are already starting to see the effects of this. While you may argue that this may be due to overfishing, but this can be refuted with the observations of shellfish farmers, and the much increased difficulty of raising creatures which depend on calcification to form shells.

The same applies for coral reefs- as ocean acidification rises, their ability to develop and grow shells will decrease with it, leading to increased stress, bleaching, and of course just straight up death.

I remember being shown a documentary in class about scientists observing the waters near the vesuvius volcano in Italy, which had a higher acidity than normal ocean water due to the nearby volcanic activity. Certain animals could still thrive under these conditions (apparently jellyfish aren't much affected by increased acidity, FUCK), but they also noted many worrisome trends, like mussels and limpets forming only extremely thin shells, leaving them much more vulnerable, and fish never laying their eggs in these highly acidic (comparatively) zones.

The bottom line is we are fucking up our world. I just chose to look at one example, but there are many more. I'm no expert in the climate system, but it's easy to see that we are currently undergoing unprecedented rates of change in our climate system, and no-one knows what the fuck is going to happen. I'm no hippy, I'm not about to sacrifice everything to work for Greenpeace my whole life, but I guess I'm a realist. The way things are going now, we're much too focused on the petty dealings of the present. So many of the issues we are dealing with now will seem insignificant even 3 years from now. This is not such an issue. Unfortunately, unless there happens to be some amazing technological innovation in the near future that will allow us to overcome the damage we are causing to our planet, I think that this is going to be procrastinated away to a point where most of the damage has already been done.

Looking forward to your responses.

[ElJefe]

280-380 ppmv is a 0,01 percentage point increase in carbon-dioxide share of total atmosphere.

0,01 percent.

Is that really going to change all that much?

What about other green-house gasses?

I'm not dogmatic. But let's assume that carbon-dioxide really will change everything. Here's 2 pieces of info:

1) China, India, Saudi Arabia and Russia are putting so much shit into the air it's putting America to shame. US emissions are falling due to shale gas, these countries are going to render all efforst at control null and void in a single year. All your efforts are therefore for naught.

2) The way we're trying to reduce emissions is by rewarding specific industries like wind-power with massive subsidies - the product of reckless lobbyism and environmental fanatics who hate humans and beautiful views. If we were serious, we'd live on nuclear power alone (0 emissions), and natural gas alone can offer huge efficieny gains because gas-plants can provide heat AND power simultaneously while wind-turbines provide power only. In addition, price per MWh in wind is at least 20 times higher than gas.

So, if you do blieve in man-made climate change, you're probably still dumb as a post for not taking the consequence of that view and endorsing massive tariffs on China and favoring nuclear power and natural-gas fired power-plants. I don't know any climate-change fanatic who's in favor of that. The answer is because they don't give a fuck about the climate, they just hate consumerism, Western civilization, America, and so on. There's no other sensible explanation.

Your welcome.

[InternationPlayboy]

From what I understand, the last ice age had as little as a 5 degree average temperature variance from what we see today. I could be wrong, but if that's right, then it doesn't take a whole lot to change the climate.

[Ovid]

Scientists always very self-righteously pronounce themselves to be 100% correct. After all, they're not "superstitious," they are "educated," and every conclusion they could ever possibly come to is supported by incontrovertible evidence derived from the scientific method. They are, of course, impartial and heroic truth-seekers above all. They are not like mere mortals, who have been known to sometimes let preconceived notions influence their understanding of things. They even wear spotless white lab coats. Yet, for all this, four hundred years ago, an educated scientist would have told you that the earth was certainly no more than 10,000 years old. A hundred and fifty years ago, an educated scientist would have told you that it was several million years old. (He would have a precise figure, which I cannot remember off the top of my head.) Nowadays, the figure is 4.5 billion. I am sure that before I die, there will be yet another figure bandied about as authoritative, based on some new evidence, some new interpretation of old evidence, some reexamination of methodology, or some political cause which requires scientific rubber-stamping for propaganda purposes.

Alas, as scientists are mere mortals, their interpretation of data can unfortunately often skewed by factors outside the scope of their observation. According to some data, the Earth is heating up. According to other data, it is cooling. Perhaps it is staying more or less the same, and all this is much ado about nothing. I am a "climate skeptic," because I do not think that we men can presume to say that we have all the data related to Earth's climate, or a complete and total understanding of all the processes which can affect it. Furthermore, the question has serious political overtones, and is being used to justify all sorts of ominous and intrusive government policies, contemplated and actual. I maintain an open mind on the subject, but for now, it seems laughable for experts to tell me what the weather will be like in 100 or 1000 years, when they cannot even tell me what tomorrow's will be with any certainty.

[not_dead_yet]

It's funny to see men that have "swallowed the red pill" wrt/American society swallow the myth of "anthropogenic CO2 warming" hook, line, and sinker.

Here's a recent article in the Economist that summarizes things pretty fairly, I think:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-an...-emissions

TL;DR -
"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'"

[CarCrashKid]

(03-28-2013 09:11 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

Scientists always very self-righteously pronounce themselves to be 100% correct. After all, they're not "superstitious," they are "educated," and every conclusion they could ever possibly come to is supported by incontrovertible evidence derived from the scientific method. They are, of course, impartial and heroic truth-seekers above all. They are not like mere mortals, who have been known to sometimes let preconceived notions influence their understanding of things. They even wear spotless white lab coats. Yet, for all this, four hundred years ago, an educated scientist would have told you that the earth was certainly no more than 10,000 years old. A hundred and fifty years ago, an educated scientist would have told you that it was several million years old. (He would have a precise figure, which I cannot remember off the top of my head.) Nowadays, the figure is 4.5 billion. I am sure that before I die, there will be yet another figure bandied about as authoritative, based on some new evidence, some new interpretation of old evidence, some reexamination of methodology, or some political cause which requires scientific rubber-stamping for propaganda purposes.

Alas, as scientists are mere mortals, their interpretation of data can unfortunately often skewed by factors outside the scope of their observation. According to some data, the Earth is heating up. According to other data, it is cooling. Perhaps it is staying more or less the same, and all this is much ado about nothing. I am a "climate skeptic," because I do not think that we men can presume to say that we have all the data related to Earth's climate, or a complete and total understanding of all the processes which can affect it. Furthermore, the question has serious political overtones, and is being used to justify all sorts of ominous and intrusive government policies, contemplated and actual. I maintain an open mind on the subject, but for now, it seems laughable for experts to tell me what the weather will be like in 100 or 1000 years, when they cannot even tell me what tomorrow's will be with any certainty.

I'm afraid I have to go against in this one.

Firstly, let us re-tell an obvious tale.
There is no such thing as a perfect human nor is there such thing as an all knowing human.

Science is not Religion.
(The Earth being 10,000 years old, That's Religion)
Science is the "attempt" to understand. My understanding of something like.. Hmmm, let's say WOMEN , constantly changes as I learn. So does Science change and that is why it is the most certain form of knowledge because unlike Religion ,it changes when the evidence changes.

Global warming?
How can animals with the ability to stand up and large Prefrontal cortexes comprehend what the Earth is doing?

The best possible way is through the use and application of Science.
We know that releasing CO2 into the environment causes changes to a number of things including the ozone and the oceans.

We know that this rarely occurs but when it does the Earth is able to stabilise itself. Only when the outburst is spontaneous and not consistent like it has been for roughly the last 200 years that it can re-adjust.

The organisms that survive these changes in the environment are not humans but the simplest, easiest to adapt bacteria and viruses.
We cannot live in a changed world where our only source of energy may be light or CO2

[EisenBarde]

The only constant is change.

[placer]

I have about the same level of respect of people who are "climate change skeptics" as I do for people who thing the Earth is under 10,000 years old: Very little. Both are people who are not only ignorant of science, but are arrogant enough to think they know better than very intelligent scientists who have studied something for years.

[MHaes]

(03-28-2013 08:48 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

0,01 percent.

Is that really going to change all that much?

Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect?

(03-28-2013 09:11 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

Scientists always very self-righteously pronounce themselves to be 100% correct.

This is patently false. Scientists use their research to propose theories. No scientist will say that a theory is a 100% guarantee for anything.

Anyways, on to the question of global warming.

Global warming is incredibly important because evidence suggests that damage is being done to the biosphere itself, not just the atmosphere. This would have very grave implications, because we would all be in the same boat here.

We took good steps in regard to the chlorofluorocarbon problem - limiting aerosol use. There is a consensus that this has "healed" the holes in the ozone layer. This has mitigated some of the problems, but not anywhere close to all of them. However, it serves as an example that we can, to some degree, remedy parts of this issue.

I think the real argument over global warming is not whether or not its happening - clearly it is. The argument is whether or not humans are responsible for it.

My line on this position is that we should act as if it is, for this reason: We don't have another planet on which to run this experiment.

We can't find out but one way, and just like we don't have the right to run an experiment on nuclear exchange on this planet, we also don't have the right to run an experiment on global warming on this planet.

If we find out its not our fault, then all it is is a case of mistaken analysis, and in that case, we did our best. However, if it turns out that it is human activity to blame for this, then by the time we can make that determination, it will have been far too late to correct it, and the consequences will be horrible.

I have been told, though (and I'm afraid to say I think it may be true) that the warming is coming now, whatever we do. By the time we found out about the rise in global temperature, the negatives were already on their way. We are going to find out what its going to be like, no matter what we do. Its just a matter of how quickly those ill effects come.

[tenderman100]

OK, are you ready for the REAL answer?

No, not whether there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...there is.

No, not whether there is climate "change" -- the climate is ALWAYS changing.

It's this.

CLIMATE CHANGE "SCIENCE" is NOT SCIENCE.

It's not. It's model building.

REAL science puts forth hypotheses that can be tested. Einstein hypothesized that gravity warps space, and light will be bent in the presence of an object with a gravitational field. Guess what? Astronomers took pictures of starlight during a solar eclipse, and lo and behold? The light was bent.

Watson and Crick hypothesized that DNA was a double helixed ladder. Guess what? It was proven true.

NO ONE CAN PROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS TRUE.

Why? Because it is about predicting the future. And the future, as we all know, is unpredictable.

Meanwhile the best science is simple. The best science holds all but one parameter constant, and adjusts that one variable, or sees how that one variable reacts under ONE controllable difference.

With climate, there are HUGE variables. Solar cycles. Earth's orbit. Sea current movements. It's not just man burning fossil fuels. Moreover, what IS the earth's "average temperature?" The earth is a pretty big place with large temperature differences owing to geography, dynamic and chaotic atmospheric adjustments, the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the distance from the sun, among many other variables that are hard to measure, let along control experimentally. It is an incredibly complex system that can only be "modeled" in the crudest way.

So, yeah, climate "science" is a misnomer. It is climate "soothsaying." The models may be right, and they may be wrong (models are almost ALWAYS wrong to some degree) but let's not kid ourselves.

This is not science. These guys are reading the equivalent of Tarot cards.