Printable View
Hmm, should we be worried that you are calling this a threat? The progression looked reasonably appealing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannis
But then again I still remember an old post of yours, so I take it it's just the extra work that is threatening....
I need one of these :OT
Just think about it this way guys. In nature, when things happen they happen very slowly. yea there are yearly spikes things like the "little ice age" that lasted a few years and then things returned to normal however the rapid heating has been steady for quite a few years now and is accelerating. If it was one of these spikes it wouldn't have lasted this long and if it was a natural progression it would be taking place at a much slower pace than it is.
It IS however the opinion of MOST of the greatest scientific minds of this generation (and has been for decades) that CLIMATE CHANGE IS A RESULT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
Argue with them.
X
It is true that the most reputable scientific bodies support this (e.g. the academies of sciences of most developed countries). Being in science myself I know that their members (in my field and several related ones) have enormous scientific and human integrity.
I would also note that the prevailing science has been wrong before (e.g. big-bang as one similarly controversial subject). Furthermore remember that it was scientists who not only invented the nuclear weapons, but also the most efficient way to use them. The policies and decisions, however, are made not by scientists, but by politicians, which have also other reasons to consider (lobbying money, voters' sentiments, and moral/ethics come to mind, not necessarily in this order).
One thing I have been concerned with, is that in the last few years politicians have chosen to twist or misrepresent science/scientific opinion to fit their policies. (May be they have always done that to some extent, but they have clearly overstepped beyond the normal practice, because this has spurred protests in the community.)
And let us remember that most of us do not have direct influence on policies - we make our small everyday decisions as changing light bulbs driving certain type of cars, vote every now and then, and may be even go to public protests. Everyone of us would like a black and white, clear cut, undisputable facts, but as we all know most things in real life are not this way. After all some will always prefer dorco to puma and some the other way around.
All I am saying is that probably we will not be able to come to a consensus on this subject, but this doesn't make the discussion useless - there have been excellent points from any person who has contributed. I have been one of the more active posters but I've certainly preferred anybody else's post to all of mine. May be we'll see some more postings before this threads naturally exhausts itself. Hopefully it won't turn into a heated war zone, but stay civilized and respectful the way it has been so far.
Cheers
More immediate consequences that have already shown their face through green house gasses - acid rain, mercury infused fish. I say this as I pump 20 gallons of gas into my car...
No need to shout.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
You only call them great minds because they coincide with your opinion. Anyone who doesn't agree then falls automatically in the 'loony' bin. So you have already distanced yourself from logical debate.
I have read both sides of the story, and do you know what I found out (don't have the references at hand. it was in a publication of 'nature, science and technics')?
Global warming was the conclusion of data set analysis using a certain algorithm. the choice of the algorithm, and the decision about which data to include and which data to discard was decided solely by the original author, based only on gut feeling. His professorship was the direct result of his conclusion. conflict of interest?
Since then, a number of people have looked at that data, and come to different conclusions simply by changing the analysis.
It turns out that things like the current change may have happened before.
Global warming is happening, and we do have an influence, but are we major or minor? I don't know, you don't know, and the phds are still fighting over it. And even if they come to a unanimous conclusion, they would probably still not know the answer.
Great minds were convinced the earth was flat.
Great minds were convinced the universe was infinite
Great minds were convinced that 100 years ago, scientific innovation would end because they knew everything there was to know about physics.
Great minds were convinced the earth was created in 6 days, 7000 years ago.
Originally posted by xman
It IS however the opinion of MOST of the greatest scientific minds of this generation (and has been for decades) that CLIMATE CHANGE IS A RESULT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY!!!
Argue with them.
X
I believe the world, and it's climate are just a bit more complex than, "It's getting warmer...humans are driving cars...THEREFORE humans MUST be causing the warming!"
Agreement among a lot of people just means they all believe the same thing. As Bruno already pointed out, ALL the GREAT MINDS of the day were of the opinion that the Earth was flat.
There was a concensus of GREAT MINDS that the Sun revolved around the Earth. There was ONE dissenter, a man named Galileo. Who, by the way, was PROVEN to be right.
Consensus doesn't necessarily mean correctness.
The following is my opinion, created through reading of some purely scientific reports/papers and sensationalist media reports (plus a few vaguely level headed ones) plus my own bias and is not to be taken seriously:
On a quantum level humans MUST be having an impact on the world, we are part of the entire ecosystem and we cannot escape what effects we have. There must be cause and effect at the macro level.
The cyclical nature of the earth cannot easily be disputed. The very foundations of your house and the buildings where you work are designed on it. (Consolidation of soil due to the Ice age(s)) The cycle is interesting; the records show that at the moment the earth is getting warmer than ever before. What we don’t know is whether this is still part of the cycle or due to human efforts.
The earth is getting warmer. There is fairly conclusive proof for this from various sources.
How much impact we have as humans is the sticking point.
As far as I’m concerned I feel that we are having an impact and anything we can do to minimise it is a good thing. (I’m pretty sure an area of rainforest the size of Wales disappearing is a bad thing) Do I think it will make a jot of difference? No not really. Should we be worried? Yes! Whatever is happening has the ability to end life, as we know it. A tad melodramatic that statement I know. As a creature humans have a head start at survival, we can look ahead and plan. The mere fact we are discussing this is a good start. The only downside is that due to political expediency the methods that will be chosen are likely to be stop-gap measures at best.
When it comes to climate change the only certain thing is uncertainty. Trite I know but I think true none the less. In a million years we as a race could be looking back and laughing, I only hope my ancestors can look back and say 'Yes, they made the right choices'
I know this isn’t a very scientific viewpoint but I think fairly well grounded. (Well of course I would, I thought it up!). However I’m always open to logical argument. As I said at the outset, don’t take it too seriously. (My viewpoint that is, not the subject)
As I said in my previous posts, it's not that I don't believe global warming is occurring. Nor do I dispute that "greenhouse gases" are a major factor (50% according to this site) in the warming. Nor do I dispute that mankind is adding positive components to the warming.
What I don't know, however, is whether what mankind is adding is having any statistically significant effect. Here's an interesting read (that's not too technical) which implies we're just in a blip in the warming/cooling cycles that the Earth has been undergoing since the beginning. Granted it was written almost 10-years ago, but nonetheless it provides some perspective.
Nor do I have a feel for how linear and responsive the climatic system is... ie, does a very small change cause our climate to change radically or only a little across a wide/narrow range of conditions? According to my 2nd reference, mankind accounts for only .3% of the greenhouse gas... does that have any meaningful significance in the overall climatic equation? Does anyone know?
Finally, I find it really hard to find theories that I trust due to the preponderance of material that's simply the "emotional arm waving" of environmental activists, those who stand to make a buck by creating a panic mindset, and those who don't want to spend any money/change their way of living. Even when I do think a theory is plausible, I remind myself that we still can't forecast tomorrow's weather with better than a 60% a certainty. :shrug:
Apparently, the jets have at least as much to do with it as the cars and re. your quote, that's why most prefer the term 'Climate Change'Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
I must respectfully submit that you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
In the middle ages (holding over to the renaissance), dissenters were racked and excommunicated for expressing such views so most of them conveniently kept their mouths shut. Just ask any sailor who watches the stars move northward in the sky as they sail south what shape the world is and they'd always know the truth. Even an uneducated person standing at the dock would see the bottom of the ship pass below the horizon before the sails and suspect the truth. Christopher Columbus himself was in danger of mutiny, not because his sailors thought that they would fall of the edge of the earth, but because they rightly knew the world was larger than they were being told and that they could not reach the Indies on their rations. Lucky for them, the Americas were there.
Believe me, I'm the first guy to be a skeptic about anything, but the facts must stand for themselves. http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics One shouldn't be a skeptic to his own folly. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face and my coming child depends on us not to make the mistake of ignorance.
X