Global Warming a Myth?

[Frickr]

Yesterday i had the chance to see this man speak, http://www.drroyspencer.com/. i felt he brought up a very valaid aguement about global warming, and how it isnt near as bad as predicted. To me his theory is alot more on the lines of my personal views on global warming. I've always thought that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling stages. look at in the 70's, right before all the emision laws came out, people thought that the world was going into an iceage. then 30 years we say its global warming. on top of it all, you find things like this http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/ where the thermomitors used in the global averages are located right next to the exhausts from airconditioners.

But what better way to get funding, if they can keep shwoing an increse in temputure the more funding they get for research, so the longer they have a job and get paid.

what do you guys think on this issue?

 

[vtac]

Global climate change

Global climate destabilization

It makes me lose faith in humanity to hear armchair experts write off the largest consensus of scientists in history.

I found this video series to be a good intro/analysis.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman was an interesting read as well.

Fuck Combustion.

 

[Frickr]

conflicting view i know. but yes, the excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does contribute to global warming, but not as much as are being showed in all the models and computer symulations. just because its a computer doesnt make it 100% right 100% of the time. the people are still entering in data. and in a word that still doesnt completely understand the climate, and try explaining everything in a mathamatical form. some things need to be looked at more as nature than numbers. one number off in that equasion could have major result differences.

not aguing, but open for debate, i would like to hear everyones side on this, since this is obviously a major issue, and what better place to talk about it with than some medicating vaporists.

 

[vtac]

So basically you're saying 'fuck all the best science we have because it's not perfect'.

Weather reports aren't 100% either. Do you disregard them and tell everyone 'don't bring an umbrella, it's just a computer model'?

the excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does contribute to global warming, but not as much as are being showed in all the models and computer symulations

Good job stating opinion as fact.

The data being plugged into those simulations is relatively old so it's not a stretch to say they're actually conservative projections.

 

[Frickr]

all im saying is look at the issue from both sides of the field then form your conclusion.

 

[stickstones]

I have read conflicting reports on global warming. My personal opinion is it's not as bad as reported. However, regardless of how much truth there is to it, it is definitely being used for agendas.

A great book to read is State of Fear. It is fiction, but backed up with a TON of research, so the story is factually sound. Written a little while ago, so we may have better scientific data now. But the main point of the book is that it is being used to forward an agenda. I fully believe this.

There's always something being used to scare the public into forwarding an agenda. The most recent thing I have read talked about the global warming fears being used to create carbon taxes in a region of the world. The hope being that it can then be spread to more of the world.

I am a budding conspiracy theorist!

 

[SpiralArchitect]

The Earth is always in some part of a cycle be it changes the climate or the dominate species. I'm sure this is just another part of it. Undoubtedly, us humans have had some kind of impact but to what extent, I don't think we can really determine that... I just say we become, as a whole, more conscious of our surroundings and what the consequences of negligence are...

 

[vtac]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, sticks. But you can't seriously be recommending a Michael Crichton novel as a good place to learn about the issue. ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Criticism

"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don't say 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem."

The thing that boggles my mind is the complete dismissal of the scientific community at large by so many on this extremely scientific and pressing issue. The Earth's climate is one of the most complex systems known to man. How the fuck does one say "well, I think x"? Yeah... fuck all those 'scientists' and their 'research'.

Hmm, I might not make too many friends here. :/

 

[stonemonkey55]

I think it would be pretty ignorant to say that global warming isn't happening. Or at the very least, we should be more green and conserve our resources. So if global warming isn't happening, we should go back to our wasteful ways? It's funny how things have to get really crappy before people decide to make changes. Hopefully this "global warming is fake" movement doesn't gain too much steam, I like being green!

 

[Frickr]

i dont think we should go back to being wasteful, the green things are fine, and i encurage more use of them. just i dont think we should be living in fear that the words going to heat up so much nearly all the population is going to die.

the world always has a way of balancing things out. if it starts getting to warm its going to come to a point where its going to have a change and start cooling again. been doing it for millions of years.

 

[HoneyAir]

It may seem like a cold winter in the northern hemisphere, but the north pole ice is STILL melting more each year and large ice shelves are breaking off in Antarctica faster than they are rebuilt.

Only a fool is not worried.

Unfortunately, it won't really be us that gets the worst of it if the climate change is disastrous... its our children. They'll be REAL thankful.... NOT.

 

[Beezleb]

Truth, the world has always been in fluctuation and change.

Truth, we the human race have impacted this fluctuation.

Question, what do we do?

 

[stickstones]

I tend to agree with just about everything on this thread so far. With regard to everyone here who has posted so far, vtac and I are the furthest to the right and left.

I don't dismiss global warming. It's definitely happening. Is it because of us? I don't know. But to 'totally side with it being human's fault' is just as prideful as 'totally siding with it as bullshit' is naive.

My point was simply that the issue is absolutely being taken advantage of by political powers that couldn't give a shit about going green, and Creighton's book does an excellent job of bringing this to light. Political powers are ALWAYS using fear to get the masses to agree to an agenda. They used 9/11 to scare us into giving up some of our most precious rights to the Patriot Act. Did 9/11 really happen? Absolutely! But its occurrence was also used to forward an agenda that could not have otherwise been tolerated. Are we having economic problems right now? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should rush right out and print another 2 trillion dollars to give away at the general public's expense (unless you are the central bank that is going to reap the interest from that loan)! And these are just recent examples. Shit, man, our precious herb that we all love to vaporize was made illegal in part due to the US just wanting to get rid of a bunch of Mexican immigrants!

Are we fucking up the planet? Definitely. Do we need to get better at taking care of the planet? You bet! Do we need to overreact without thinking things through and follow the mindless herd down some rotten political agenda? Fuck no!

 

[vtac]

just i dont think we should be living in fear that the words going to heat up so much nearly all the population is going to die.

The term 'global warming' is a misnomer. Most people welcome the thought of warmer weather... just crank up the AC and everything's peachy.

Problem is, just a few degrees can really fuck with ecosystems. One example is the mountain pine beetle which basically kills pine trees. Usually, sustained cold temperatures in winter control the population, but recently it hasn't been getting cold enough and HUGE swaths of forests are dying. So now, instead of being CO2 sponges, all those dead trees are spewing massive amounts of CO2 out into the atmosphere. Things can go from good to very bad pretty quickly.

Don't get me wrong, the planet will survive just about anything aside from the sun exploding. Things like Hurricane Katrina and the tsunamis aren't very fun for humans (or the all the species going extinct faster than ever), though. And our best research points to those things happening much more frequently in the future because of our carbon emissions.

Is it because of us? I don't know. But to 'totally side with it being human's fault' is just as prideful as 'totally siding with it as bullshit' is naive.

That's my point. You don't know. I don't know. This is one of the most complex scientific matters in history, and all the best organizations of scientists we have are pretty much all telling us to start worrying and fast. Think about what's at stake here.

sticks, I totally understand where you're coming from. But to use the previous administration's mistakes as ammunition against action on such a potentially devastating and urgent issue is pretty crazy don't you think? I'll pick up a copy of State of Fear, I did enjoy Jurassic Park as a kid as well as Prey more recently. You should check out Hot, Flat, and Crowded- fuck it I'll just paste the summary from wikipedia:

In the book, Thomas L. Friedman addresses America?s surprising loss of focus and national purpose since 9/11 and the global environmental crisis. He advocates that global warming, rapidly growing populations, and the expansion of the global middle class through globalization have produced the convergence of hot, flat, and crowded. The solution to the environmental threat and the best way for America to renew its purpose is linked: take the lead in a worldwide effort to replace wasteful, inefficient energy practices with a strategy for clean energy, energy efficiency, and conservation. This means that the big economic opportunities have shifted from IT (Information Technology) in recent decades to ET (renewable Environmental Technologies). Friedman frequently uses 2050 as a marker for when it will be too late for our world to reverse the harmful effects of climate change.

The book alleges we've gone from the "Cold War Era" to the "Energy-Climate Era", marked by five major problems: growing demand for scarcer supplies, massive transfer of wealth to petrodictators, disruptive climate change, poor have-nots falling behind, and an accelerating loss of biodiversity. A green strategy is not simply about generating electric power, it is a new way of generating national power.

I'm sorry if I came off combative... the notion that this is all a myth just gets to me.

 

[stickstones]

sticks, I totally understand where you're coming from. But to use the previous administration's mistakes as ammunition against action on such a potentially devastating and urgent issue is pretty crazy don't you think? I'll pick up a copy of State of Fear, I did enjoy Jurassic Park as a kid as well as Prey more recently. You should check out Hot, Flat, and Crowded

I read Prey after State of Fear and was a little disappointed because State of Fear had WAY more research and references and a much more believable story line. I found myself reading Prey thinking 'this is entertaining, but nowhere near as convincing'.

I wish it were just the previous administration that we have to look out for.

Great quote from Hot, Flat and Crowded!

 

[Honey Bear]

VTac, thanks for all the great info, keep it coming!
I think Ima have to go pick myself up a copy of "Flat, Hot, and Crowded" in the near future.
It upsets me greatly when people connect acting green on a personal level with political corruption, fear tactics, and blind liberalism. Last time I checked all of the scientists that have substantiated global climate change were not too worried about politics other than to get the least stupid person elected.
Not acting green on a personal level is embarrassing. While it is selfish, living a green life is worth if for no other reason than that it makes the appreciation of nature that much more full and true, and boy is that a beautiful thang.

 

[Acolyte of Zinglon]

the solution, plant massive hemp fields, use the seed oil to feed the hungry, and as fuel for our cars, the plants themselves will absorb quite a bit of co2, and the government could make massive amounts of money taxing the sales of the buds, which they could then use to distribute to state's infrastructure and to help those below the poverty line
its such a ridiculously no-lose situation :/

mind you, this was mostly meant as a playful comment, this discussion is a little to heavy for me to really get involved with, interesting reading though

 

[Frickr]

north dakotas already started growing hemp. just in its infant stages now, but atleast we got that law changed for our benefit!

anyways Dr spencer as i mentioned in the frist post, wasnt discuraging any of the green things. infact, he was saying to keep on the same trends, and he was speaking to a crowd of people in the energy field. but i found his paper on cloud coverage, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation were a really intresting change in perspective.

based on his findings he ran a new climate model and found between a half a degree to a degree with current co2 trends. thats alot better then the 5 to 10 degrees that other physicists are predicting.

vtac i encourage you to raed this paper and give me your thoughts on it. a little more reading you can find factual support for each of his claims http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

[max]

Regardless of how much humans have impacted climate change, as a species we are short sighted and ruled by greed. We're all about 'I want it and I want it cheap' from the consumer viewpoint, and 'anything to make a buck, no matter the consequences' from the sellers. We usually don't make changes that require spending money and making sacrifices until after a disaster has occurred, like earthquake resistant buildings after they all collapse in a minor quake, and alternate fuel sources after gas prices go sky high and OPEC has us by the balls.

If we continue to use up natural resources like they're unlimited, and pollute the environment like it doesn't matter, we're gonna be in deep shit whether we've caused global warming or not.

 

[vtac]

I read Prey after State of Fear and was a little disappointed because State of Fear had WAY more research and references and a much more believable story line. I found myself reading Prey thinking 'this is entertaining, but nowhere near as convincing'.

It's kind of twisted, but man at some points I couldn't help but cheer for those little nanobots in Prey. Hey, it's only a book! Crichton wrote great science fiction, but to cite SoF as a credible source because of its references is a stretch. Pasting from the wiki link in post #8:

This novel received criticism from climate scientists, science journalists and environmental groups for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research. Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel.

Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper, wrote in the New York Times stating that "... our results have been misused as ?evidence? against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel ?State of Fear?

Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in Nature in 2005: "Michael Crichton?s latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is likely to mislead the unwary. . . Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton?s use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."

The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book. Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC." James Hansen wrote: He (Michael Crichton) doesn?t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about.

What I'm trying to say is, for something as complicated as this, you really have to check your sources and look at credibility. Your generation is subject to more information than any generation in history. Let me suggest one thing, don?t let me get away with it. Check me out, but check everybody else out too. Don?t just take it for granted because you read it someplace. Check it out. - Ronald Reagan

vtac i encourage you to raed this paper and give me your thoughts on it. a little more reading you can find factual support for each of his claims

I'm getting "500 Internal Server Error"

I mean, there will always be some people who disagree with anything. But again, let's look at credibility. A little digging reveals Spencer is a member of The Heartland Institute- a think tank which basically says climate change is a myth (and that cigarette smoke isn't all that bad for you). So right there you have some serious bias and an agenda. Spencer also doesn't believe in evolution. Pardon me if I roll my eyes. Point being, a paper from a single person is near the bottom of the credibility scale.

At the very top of the credibility scale, you have professional organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences. Complete night and day difference. They're telling us: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. These organizations would never ever make statements like that because of some hidden agenda.

Seriously, when you look at who's still saying we shouldn't be worried, they're all near the bottom of the credibility scale. There's no equivalent to AAAS or NAS on the skeptic's side. Not even close. You even have organizations contradicting their normal biases, like the big companies in USCAP calling for emissions caps on their own industries.

I realize I'm not about to change anyone's mind here, and I really wouldn't want anyone to take my word for it. I know absolutely fuck all about climate science. But, I do try to use the best information available to form an opinion. Wow this turned into a long post... I've been up for 24 hours and just had a big session so please forgive me if it's poorly written or if I offended anyone/everyone.

 

[stickstones]

SoF, imo, is best read as an indictment on the powers that be using fear as a tactic to get what they want. That was the point of the book. It was written a while ago when evidence for global warming was not as strong as it is now.

The scientists vtac quoted feel Creighton is against the argument for global warming. I tend to think the book was more about fear and how it can be used, with the current global warming issue used as a canvas. If I remember correctly, he referred to some other world events that were used in this way as well. Since reading this book a couple of years ago, I think the case for global warming is stronger and can't really be argued against with much sense.

My point is that I think some people are rushing to solutions without thinking them all the way through, or worse, jumping on the bandwagon for solutions that were proposed by the same people who are pushing for an agenda that has nothing to do with the health of the planet.

 

[Frickr]

i dont know if you ever watch the science or the green channel, but i have to laugh at some of the inventions some of these people are coming up with to solve the worlds energy problems. looking at nearly all of them, just to be feasable with supplying enough power to power a small town is laughable. a

then you have scienctists that are investing millions of dollars of our taxpayer money into things like mirrors to reflect the sun.... dont you think that that would have more of an effect on the entire ecosystem then the amount of co2 in the atomsphere?

i dont think we need to stop thinking about ways to end any chance of global warming, as said before i rather be safe then sorry. but i think a bigger shift needs to be taken for smarter solutions. first things first the energy grid in the us needs to be completely revamped. that way areas from texas to north dakota could be used for wind energy. then maybe in areas like wyoming, we could start using geothermal energy to further cut on the use of coal and oil.

i cant help but sort of get excited about this, since the energy field is what im primarily going into, and i feel that where i live is right in the middle of all the major energy sorces. 3 days a year is how often we have a completely calm day in this state. just think of the potential for wind energy just in this state alone. and its the same from here to texas. with a completely renewable energy that will never run out unless the wind stops blowing.

but using those, you still will need a major powerplant. wind energy can supply a major amount of energy, but its not going to supply 100% of the power. at times when there is alot higher demand for electricity, a switch can be flipped and a powerplant can be cranked up to supply the amount of power needed at that time.

coal power any more is actually pretty clean. all the harmful stuff is scrubbed out of the stack before it even leaves. what you see coming out is mostly steam. so the idea of clean coal is a highly possible idea.

 

[stickstones]

I ran across this interesting link.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

 

[Frickr]

it will be intresting to see the outcome of this confrence

 

[marvel]

The thing that boggles my mind is the complete dismissal of the scientific community at large by so many on this extremely scientific and pressing issue.

Uhhh, right... here's the thing, man... there are a lot of climate scientists who disagree with the notion that we could have anything to do with climate change. Look, the science proves that the climate is changing, but what is entirely still up for debate is whether we are causing the "problem" or not, or whether we could even do anything to fix it even if we put 100% of our resources into it, or for that matter whether it's really a problem in the first place.