General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic.
I do not believe that little people know for sure without a doubt that humans are the cause. The earth has gone through many climate changes long before the industrial revolution. I however believe that all pollution should as quickly as possible, be eliminated. I feel if you wouldn't want it dumped in your back yard or buried, then we shouldn't be producing it. I feel the whole idea is a scam to tax you and I. Move towards elimination of pollutants and genetic modifications in food also. The foolhearted attempt at modifying nature will destroy us all. We must work alongside nature not against it. We will lose and some, most or all will die. Nature will kick our ass every time. How many times must we experience this ass kicking to get the hint?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
dawg
(10,777 posts)
tblue37
(68,421 posts)You can smell Tokyo on his breath.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Not very consistent. 
Obstinacy rules!
--imm
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)?????
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The word "pollutant" is kind of loaded. In extreme conditions oxygen is also a pollutant.
The word "agnostic" indicates a lack of knowledge. It sounds like you don't know what harm is being caused to the environment from burning sequestered carbon. That is pretty well established.
--imm
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)I'm a fan of words.
Some of my favorites are "appears to be", "seems to be", "apparently".
And the best way to know if a project will fail
is to parse the full project plan and identify
how many times you see
"should be"
"could be"
and my all-time favorite
"would be" as it in
"This deliverable would be met IF..."
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Scientists don't make absolute statements about scientific theory.
I have to admit that I usually debate environment with a couple of hard core climate deniers. They pounce on terms like "settled science" and want to equivocate the shit out out of every little unguarded phrase.
The words you cited all have a place. The important thing, I think, is to get what people mean. You're not their copy editor. And this is not a project.
--imm
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)what I meant. Maybe you and others should read this.
Carbon Dioxide levels also increased and reached levels three times what they are today.
The cooling period was soon replaced by a gradual warming which steadily increased due to the effects of rising CO2 levels and possibly the release of methane from its frozen state in ocean depths.
It is also conjectured that the spreading of the sea floor in the trenches beneath the Atlantic contributed tremendous amounts of gasses and heat to the overall global warming.
http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/cretaceous_home.html
Still even if this is true I do not want to consume pollutants. They are harming our biosphere.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What is CO2 doing to your biosphere, if not trapping heat and causing warming. Please, do tell.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Which can cause more warming. Not sure why I was blanking in general on that one today. 
But, does this poster really believe it causes that or correlates to it?!?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)You were identifying with "little people" and I missed the meaning there. Still do.
The paleohistory stuff is not relevant to what's happening now. Climate change in the past took place over thousands of years. More time for plants and animals to adapt through natural selection.
The CO2 levels you cite do have ill effects on modern humans, but other life forms thrived, and grew large because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere.
In short, the problem is not the climate change, it's the rapid climate change. And "pollutant" gets an asterisk at least. I only drink seltzer. Loaded with CO2, and right down my gullet. I wouldn't do that with most pollutants. I see the rationale behind the appeal to people. But they won't listen. They think pollution "goes away."
--imm
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)It gives me hope. Drink too much water and it becomes toxic. Too much of anything is not beneficial. I however am not focused on just the CO2. I am focused on everything that comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks along with all pollutants.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)to nominate this post because you continue to refuse to accept this
from
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
AAO
(3,300 posts)Nederland
(9,979 posts)If you look up the observed temperatures in Greenland for the last few years you'd see that your red line needs to go up much further than what you have shown. The temperature record at the GRIP drilling site (which is only 24km from where the ice cores you are referencing were drilled) looks like this:
Now, you can't simply tack on a new line that goes all the way up to -27.0. I know a lot of people would do that to try make you look really stupid, but I'm not one of them. I'm interested in the truth, which I hope you are too.
No, what you need to do is correct for the difference between the proxy data (coming from the ice cores) and the observed temperatures by comparing them at the same point in time. Doing this we see that around 1855 where the ice core data ends the temperature comes back as -28.5, but the actual observed comes in at -31.5 for the same period. So we have a ~3.0 degree difference. So we take the observed number in 2009 (-27.0) and subtract 3.0 to end up at 30.0 degrees for present day. That would make your chart look like this:
I believe this is a more accurate picture. You still might have a point, since you were a little vague on what you think the chart showed. I'll let people look at it and decide for themselves.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)eliminate "all pollution."
So you preferred Dubya to Gore, then?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I only prefer for us to clean up our act and stop polluting. Obviously you don't?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that climate change or global warming is directly related to the industrialization occurring brought about by humans.
There is evidence of lead in the atmosphere, from ice core samples, going back thousands of years to Roman and Greek times. Considering the much smaller populations at the time, and their ability to pump enough pollutants into the air to be detected, has convinced me that mass industrialization and burning of fossil fuels to be the culprit to our modern problems.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yeah, I think the science is pretty much settled in that regard, at least. 
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)As with all things human, they don't all agree on history and science ever. The only sure way to solve this problem is to move away from pollution as quickly as possible and to be in harmony with nature not against it. That still would not 100% ensure that that nature doesn't have it's own plans or that forces outside of our world (Sun and all within the Universe) doesn't have it's own also. Humans are little minded, egotistical piss ants. Trying to understand that which they still are unable to comprehend. Instead of saying "We are not sure what is causing this but we do know that pollution is bad and must be moved away from as fast a possible" we are getting "We must tax for carbon emissions". When has taxing made anything better? Will not prices go up but the pollution continue? Isn't a move away from pollutants with a time frame a much more viable solution? Such as, all vehicles must have a 50mpg rating by 2016 otherwise you can't make them? Why does it always have to end up with taxation? Why not elimination? One person said "pollution can't be eliminated". LOL. So what is the freakin point then? Taxes? Yea that makes sense.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I think the tax scheme is a carbon shell game and I think humanity is living completely incongruently with nature. The reality is that all proposed solutions are being proposed in the context of saving civilization and keeping it going forward. I care fuck all about that.
But as far as the cause, its pretty clear as long as you understand that atmospheric green house gases increase temperature (fortunately, we can simulate this behavior in a simple closed system lab experiment that a 3rd grader can conduct). Now, if we can pinpoint GHG levels as a significant cause of warming with science, and we can correlate green house gas levels to human activity and industrialization (for 2000 years), then it follows that human activity is causing an increase in a condition that promotes warming.
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)because "warming is advancing faster than expected".
Models are simulations of reality, not reality.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)compared to what? The earth has been here a long time and will be here even if we are not. To say that this is unprecedented is crap. The earth started out as a molten orb.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AND why are you attempting (very unconvincingly) to preach it on a DEMOCRATIC web forum?
Curious....
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)what a little narrow view you have of the democratic party. I bet you think all democrats are for outlawing all guns too and if they're not they aren't democrats. Yep.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We do not follow their ideology, sorry.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)DO NOT adopt your far left ideology either. We tend to be rational and deal with facts.
Chew on this graph!
from
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is it a "far left" position to admit that scientists are correct, and the GOP is wrong, or is it just common sense?
Science = facts
XemaSab
(60,212 posts) AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts) Nederland
(9,979 posts)See post #462 for an explanation.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I am talking to you about the fundamental science, not projections. Most models fail to understand and account for the vast feedback loops being created from the GHG warming (tundra losing methane, ice sheets losing reflective abilities, etc).
Other things are now causing increase above and beyond what the GHG would cause by themselves. This is known. It is also known they wouldn't be able to do this if atmospheric carbon wasn't already at 400 ppm
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The point being that one doesn't need 100% of all scientists everywhere to agree in order for it to be true. One could lump evolution into that category, as well, and even the germ theory of disease (which a few people with letters after their name still reject).
I am interested to know if a carbon tax will work. My gut feeling is that it won't, or won't work well enough, but there's an upcoming experiment in California that will make me less agnostic on the subject.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)that doesn't agree with you?
Viking12
(6,012 posts)other things, not necessarily
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)has already been proven many times over. As one stated earlier and I also watched "The Dust Bowl". Destruction of the Rain Forest all bad things. You and others are so fearful that the only way to stop this madness is by accepting climate change from CO2 and not the fact that pollutants are bad. It makes no sense.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Everyone here thinks pollutants are bad. We know that CO2 IS a pollutant. We know that it is the one with the potential to cause the greatest harm to humans. We know that CO2 and other very harmful pollutants all come from the same sources. You clearly can't comprehend that.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and that was all too clear. Why does it matter to you so much that everyone believes in climate change global warming if it caused by a pollutant. Do you love pollutants? Do you want to bathe, drink and eat pollutants? Isn't it enough to want to eliminate pollutants?
Why the stuck and I do mean stuck on CC and GW? Why alienate those that want the same thing? Those that also hate tailpipe and industrial pollutants? Those that hate all pollutants. Do you really believe that is helping your cause?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Which is that climate science denial is on a level with holocaust denial, even if one can find credentialed deniers, and even if people who deny climate change, evolution, and the holocaust are all nutbags of the highest order. They're still out there confusing what should be obvious, cut-and-dried issues.
obamanut2012
(29,340 posts)
Yes, ALL historians agree the Holocaust happened. Give a link NOW to support your claim all historians do NOT think the Holocaust happened.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)when they provide necessary public services like education, roads, firefighters.
when they force businesses to pay the true cost of their business
when taxes on harmful consumer goods like cigarettes cause a drop in cigarette consumption.
when they provide incentives for people to switch to renewable energy sources.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)it is about taxation to rid something from the earth. We don't need a drop. We need an elimination. We have tax breaks for the volt but they took them away for hybrids. I am all for tax breaks. Make it so that the more efficient automobile is the least expensive.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)all vehicles must have a 50mpg rating by 2016?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)on the vehicles. Large ones at that to the consumer. Force the buyer to purchase the cheaper more efficient vehicle. Quite simple really.
It has already worked in the past. Go full tilt on this and get it done.
edhopper
(37,329 posts)Not that it matters. Science is not about belief. It's about facts and evidence.
And the overwhelming evidence is that Climate Change is happening and it is primarily caused by humans.
Unfortunately the newer evidence shows it progressing at a more rapid pace than earlier thought.
So our window of action gets smaller. Debating the science (a Republican tactic) is just an excuse to do nothing.
Obviously you have read little about the science of Climate Change, or if you have, do not really understand it.
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)But I haven't seen the evidence that proves it's human.
Cause-n-effect are tricky things,
people often get them reversed or confused.
edhopper
(37,329 posts)the climatologist papers. Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
jpak
(41,780 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Changes in ocean salinity over the second half of the 20th Century are consistent with the influence of human activities and inconsistent with natural climate variations, according to a new study led by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.
Observed changes agree with computer models suggestions about salinity trends in a steadily warming world, said Scripps climate researcher David Pierce, the study's lead author. Ocean salinity changes are driven by the world's patterns of evaporation and rainfall, which themselves are changing. Observations over recent decades have found a general intensification of salinity differences in which salty ocean regions experience even more evaporation of surface waters and relatively fresh regions are becoming even more diluted with precipitation. These patterns are part of global changes in precipitation and evaporation that influence rainfall or the lack of it over land.
. . . .
The previous temperature studies and this analysis of ocean salinity use a technique known as detection and attribution. In this method, observed trends in ocean salinity are compared to the effects of various historical phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or solar fluctuations and to climate cycles such as El Niño. When the computer climate models were run, the influence of those phenomena do not replicate the salinity or temperature patterns that researchers have observed since 1955. Only when the warming trends associated with human activity were added could the observed salinity trends and temperature changes be explained.
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1297&pass=005904
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found that the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems, collected from about 80 studies each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004. Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
. . . .
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia," said Rosenzweig.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/human_impact.html
Great that you favor protecting the environment. The role of human behavior is hard to understand.
The Scripps Institute for Oceanography and NASA are two scientific organizations that can be trusted on this issue. As you will see, their conclusions are based on huge data samples, the work of many scientists, not just a few. You can trust their research and their conclusions.
I know people -- scientists -- who work in this field. The now vast statistical research and the historic record leave no doubt at this point that the drastic, extreme and very rapid climate change that scientists are observing across the globe is due to human activity.
As for the argument that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past. That is quite true. But scientists have studied the record, the traces left in the natural world from those periods of warming and cooling and have determined that they can pinpoint natural reasons for them such as many volcanoes.
By process of elimination (similar to the process of differential diagnosis that doctors use), they have determined that the only possible cause for climate change now is our excessive use of fossil fuels.
Scientists are seeking to find ways to lessen the effects of our excessive use of fossil fuels and other destructive behavior on our environment.
If you have doubts about the causes of climate change, please seek more information. It is so important that people like you who are genuinely concerned about our environment but doubting the science examine that science more carefully. We can all learn more about this from the scientists who study it.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)In actuality, science IS about belief.
Using the scientific method, one can disprove but never prove. Hypotheses and conclusions can be supported with evidence (as you touch on) but it is not proof.
That is what is wonderful about science. Conclusions and theories can always be challenged.
Please don't use science to say something is proven.
edhopper
(37,329 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)on your part.
Scientific investigation is all about argument.
Scientific skepticism is good.
Don't make science faith based.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Same as we would ban people who aren't sure whether women should be able to vote or gay people should be allowed to get married.
It's just the same category of extremely dangerous wrongness.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)will fly, though.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Response to grantcart (Reply #420)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He is preaching denial. He is a global warming atheist, not agnostic. He is preaching the Koch brothers position. He is preaching the oil industry position. He is preaching the GOP position, and making a fool of himself in the process.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you know?
maybe not.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)the hysteria can be overwhelming. It isn't a topic I have done much research on, but here is part of an article I just found doing an internet search. The article seems balanced and neutral in tone, which is what I like to read when seeking info on controversial topics. Here is an interesting piece of it:
"How Global Warming Works"
Is Global Warming a Real Problem?
Despite a scientific consensus on the subject, some people don't think global warming is happening at all. There are several reasons for this:
They don't think the data show a measurable upward trend in global temperatures, either because we don't have enough long-term historical climate data or because the data we do have isn't clear enough.
A few scientists think that data is being interpreted incorrectly by people who are already worried about global warming. That is, these people are looking for evidence of global warming in the statistics, instead of looking at the evidence objectively and trying to figure out what it means.
Some argue any increase in global temperatures we are seeing could be a natural climate shift, or it could be due to other factors than greenhouse gases.
Most scientists recognize that global warming does seem to be happening, but a few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about. These scientists say that the Earth is more resistant to climate changes on this scale than we think. Plants and animals will adapt to subtle shifts in weather patterns, and it is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen as a result of global warming. Slightly longer growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels and stronger weather, in their opinion, are not generally disastrous. They also argue that the economic damage caused by cutting down on the emission of greenhouse gases will be far more damaging to humans than any of the effects of global warming.
In a way, the scientific consensus may be a moot point. The real power to enact significant change rests in the hands of those who make national and global policy. Some policymakers in the United States are reluctant to propose and enact changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks global warming poses. Some common concerns, claims and complaints include:
A change in the United States' policies in emissions and carbon production could result in a loss of jobs.
India and China, both of which continue to rely heavily on coal for their main source of energy, will continue to cause environmental problems even if the United States changes its energy policies (critics of these policymakers point out that this approach employs the tu quoque logical fallacy).
Since scientific evidence is about probabilities rather than certainties, we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming, that our contribution is significant, or that we can do anything to fix it.
Technology will find a way to get us out of the global warming mess, so any change in our policies will ultimately be unnecessary and cause more harm than good.
What's the correct answer? It can be hard to figure out. Most scientists will tell you that global warming is real and that it is likely to do some kind of harm, but the extent of the problem and the danger posed by its effects are wide open for debate.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming7.htm
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)thank you
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You need to go to scientists who are actually doing the research to get a reliable answer.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)So its a coincidence that the earth is warming as we approach 400 ppm of atmospheric carbon, just as it is a coincidence we are approaching these levels while man is kicking up 30 billion tons of CO2 a year?
Or?
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)correlation is not causation.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its simple to verify the greenhouse effect
So you are saying that when man puts 30 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere its a coincidence atmospheric carbon levels increase?
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)That's from Statistics 101.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Since their 30 billion ton of emissions isn't causing an atmospheric carbon increase, does it fly away to magic lollipop land the moment it hits the air?
Here is proof that emissions increase atmospheric composition: drive your car into your garage and close the door to create a semi-closed system. Take a breath of air to notice its pollutant levels. Run the car for 5 hours while staying in the garage. Let me know how it goes.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)There's no known physical mechanism?
hatrack
(64,824 posts)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That's the million idiot question
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The answer is obvious.
(Not sure if you were being sarcastic NoOneMan.)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But it seems our friend downstream has denied the warming actions of CO2, so its irrelevant regardless.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the link between lung cancer and other diseases for many years.
There is correlation but no proof.
In fact, the tobacco companies were just hiding the overwhelming evidence that tobacco kills. It doesn't kill every smoker with 100% certainty, but the process by which tobacco causes serious disease is in well understood. If people want to play tobacco roulette with their lives, it's their business. But personally, I consider them to be fools. Tobacco kills far too often for me. I believe the science. I don't smoke.
Like the tobacco industry with smoking, companies that sell products that are polluting our environment have a tremendous incentive to create false and misleading information on the issue.
I assure you that the university professors and scientists including NASA scientists who are warning us about the human causes for climate change could just as well be earning their living doing research that would contradict the idea that human behavior is causing climate change. In fact, the scientist who could give a clean pass to carbon fuels based on credible research would be extremely well rewarded by the corporations that are enriching themselves by selling carbon fuels like coal and oil.
The evidence that our current climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity especially our burning of fossil fuels is so persuasive that it is really a cruel joke for people to question that evidence. Just a cruel joke.
MH1
(19,149 posts)There is a simple-to-do experiment that demonstrates the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in an atmosphere in closed system. We know by measurement that the carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is increasing. Therefore we extrapolate from our tabletop experiment that the increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will cause a similar effect.
That alone is still not "proof" in the absolute sense but it's a heckuva lot more meaningful than correlation.
Oh, and we also know why carbon dioxide is increasing in Earth's atmosphere, and that's because a) we're putting it there by burning fossil fuels and b) we've reduced the rate of CO2 removal by cutting down forests.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Correlations are the only indicators of causations in most of science. An examination of the data and sequence, and elimination of common causes, and replication would largely eliminate the "coincidence."
--imm
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There is no 100% guarantee that driving drunk will cause an accident every time.
But is it worth taking the chance.
Not for me.
The extent of the scientific research on global warming pretty much eliminates any explanation for the observable and rapid warming of our planet other than our burning of fossil fuels.
If you have any suggestions about anything besides fossil fuels that could be causing global warming, I'm sure the scientists at NASA and places like the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and many other serious institutions studying the issue would be glad to hear about it. But I must warn you, the serious students, the scientists dedicating their lives to these questions have already considered and eliminated non-human alternatives such as volcanoes.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I think that correlations are evidence of causation. My objection was to using the concept of proof as it applies to science. I am not a denier of climate change, even when I'm driving drunk. 
--imm
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)PPM of CO2 is rising. That is physical reality.
There's only a 5% chance we are not the cause.
jpak
(41,780 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Then why would you link an article that spends most of its time talking about the "few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about" and "we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming"?
This is akin to saying "we can't be certain what processes spurred the evolution through natural selection of a given species."
You've taken a position whether you want to believe it or not.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I lived in Ridgecrest, CA - east of the Sierra nevada mountains.
Storms would roll in from the west and just stop right on top of the mountains.
In Tehachapi, another placed I lived, when I worked for Enron I watched out my window as a mountain was removed bit by bit.
Had they done this with the larger mountains it would have drastically altered the climate of the desert.
We can affect our climate in many ways. Yes there are cycles but just because they exist does not mean they are the sole cause.
If we can control one thing that contributes to it in a negative way we should.
I also liken it to sitting in a garage with your car running. Nothing will happen at first, but over time some bad most certainly will as things build up.
'The' cause? Perhaps not. A cause most assuredly.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sometimes, we tend to forget that altering climate doesn't just happen indirectly thru Co2. It can happen directly as well.
sarisataka
(22,647 posts)Even if the theories are wrong and humans are not having any effect on the climate, what is the harm in reducing emissions and limiting our impact on the environment?
-If we are not affecting the climate anyway, reduced pollution will only benefit us with even cleaner air and water.
-If we are affecting the climate, reducing pollution must be started as soon as possible to mitigate harm.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)we should not just reduce pollutants but eliminate them. I think we agree then. Why the taxes?
sarisataka
(22,647 posts)I believe carrots would be better than sticks. Rather than extra taxes on pollutants, which encourages companies to hide their actual waste, offer incentives which encourages publication of positive actions.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)taxation is the solution. Elimination is.
AAO
(3,300 posts)aletier_v
(1,773 posts)Why not be safe?
OTOH, it does gore a lot of economic oxen.
In any event, we don't have much control of India, China, etc.
Tragedy of the Commons.
Most likely we'll see a repeat of history and a fairly large die-off,
either through virus, starvation or war.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)stopped trading with countries that pollute.
Problem is we like to pollute.
We drive SUVs and other gas guzzling cars. We drive instead of using public transportation that uses less gas.
We keep our houses extremely warm. Many people overheat their houses.
We use air conditioning when we really don't need to. We fly when we don't need to. We overconsume when it comes to energy. That is one of our national flaws.
Increasingly, I see young people in Los Angeles riding bikes and walking. It's healthy, and they are helping the environment. I wish I could do more. I want to leave a world with clean air, clean water and a livable climate for my grandchildren. It makes me sad when people raise foolish questions and refuse to do the minimal amount of research and then accept the undeniable truth that research proves. Really sad.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)That will show you that people can impact the weather.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and a favorite of mine is Grapes of Wrath. My post did not cover that part of man screwing with nature. However it still coincides with man working with nature. That should be presumed. Why is it so important that it be presumed man is causing global warming and not that pollution is really bad? Why tax and not prevent?
Viking12
(6,012 posts)A massive conspiracy to raise taxes? Sheesh.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)He is not for the E.P.A. I am however. A strict hand to stop pollution. So maybe you're Rush.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)How about addressing the substance of my post. You claim it's all a "scam to tax". Please proceed.
You're not any different than Rush if that's your position.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)action.
Why tax? Why not eliminate?
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Scientifically, politically, and economically ignorant is not a good combination on this website.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and it's all too evident who's arse you kiss and your ignorance of other solutions.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)I understand the science. I know how policy tools work to influence the market. You clearly don't.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)You don't understand anything. Industry and the public will pay higher prices and it will continue. Tax breaks however are the answer. That is what prompted many hybrid sales. Not higher prices.
AAO
(3,300 posts) JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)cause them to cost more. We need a combination of tax breaks for choices that help the environment and a tax penalty for choices that harm it.
The problem is too serious, and our habits too deeply ingrained to change our behavior just with positive reinforcement.
There comes a time when the addicted smoker with a bad cough has to make a choice: smoke or die young.
As a society we are at that point. To reduce the prevalence of smoking in California, we raised the price of cigarettes and made it more expensive to smoke by raising taxes on tobacco products. We also prohibited smoking in places where people expose others to second hand smoke, places like restaurants and office buildings.
In part because of our geography, in part because the size of our cities, in part because we burn too many fossil fuels in Southern California, the air is bad even for those of us who don't smoke. As a state, we simply cannot afford to have to pay for the treatment of so many lung diseases. And from a humanitarian point of view, we don't want to see so many of us suffer from those diseases.
Climate change is going to cause reduced harvests, hunger, disease, forest fires, extreme weather events and any number of really horrible effects on our lives.
It may already be too late to slow down or stop the process of climate change. It's irresponsible and greedy for people to spread doubt on this issue. Climate change is real and it is caused to a great extent, a decisive extent, by human conduct. That is all there is to it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...which you deny exists? Er, um...ok.
lol
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)for merchandise that is more energy efficient will help curb CO2 emmisions. I know it's hard for you but I am against pollutants. Man made CO2 happens to be one of them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)is no more than a shield that you hide behind. Show the studies showing that CO2 is just another pollutant, and not the cause of climate change.
Thanks in advance.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)during the dixoin poisoning, lead poisoning, smog causing lung diseae times. You are the one hiding behind the shield of CC & GW and not concerned about the real problem, pollutants. All you care about is keeping the earth temps from climbing. Fine, have your stoppage of earths temps and ingest other pollutants. That's smart.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Show the studies stating that CO2 is just another pollutant, and not the cause of climate change.
Thanks in advance.
Javaman
(65,668 posts)when the reggie is called on his bs, he uses supposition and opinion and zero facts and links.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The tide is coming in.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)never would. A person should build his house on a strong foundation. The beach isn't a good place to build. A great place to visit.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)for denial
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)happening. Climate change happens every day. ROFLMAO. What the smart ones are denying is that we for sure know what the cause is but we know for sure pollution is bad for us.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are taking the GOP position
Denial is rooted in fear
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts) AAO
(3,300 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The fact that you have adopted the GOP position and are shouting it from the rooftops, or that you are repeating Romney's climate change position verbatim?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I have relatives and friends who are die hard far righties. They want the E.P.A. abolished. I'm not saying the CC & GW isn't true. I simply stated I do not believe. An agnostic on the subject. I neither believe or disbelieve.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"An agnostic on the subject. I neither believe or disbelieve. " This statement is not true. You are shouting DENIAL from the rooftops. Your position is clear, that CO2 is not the cause of climate change, and that scientists are wrong.
You are trying to hide behind words like 'agnostic', and 'pollution' .
What are you so scared of?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)that is b.s.
I'm simply not convinced. You know, the area that isn't black nor white? Or do you?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You state so ad nauseum throughout this thread. You are convinced that the GOP and the Oil companies are correct, that CO2 is not causing climate change. That is your stated position.
An agnostic would not argue such a position. An agnostic would state, "Is it possible that climate change is caused by man made CO2, and it is possible that it isn't"
You are a climate change denier, which ranks right up there with birtherism and dinosaurs pulling plows in the middle ages.
Javaman
(65,668 posts)
!!!
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)ones that think 100% of the scientist agree exactly on this subject.
War Horse
(931 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Glad you posted it. Thanks.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)when she said the 20th century. Damn the world is not a 10o yrs old!!!!!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)from
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
but you will deny it with no reasoning what so ever.
Nederland
(9,979 posts)See post #462 for an explanation.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)For the past 150 years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, factories around the globe have been pumping toxins into our atmosphere and into our oceans. Relentlessly.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Damn. Shouldn't it be "Pollution is bad and it's killing us. Let's eliminate it? Not tax it?" Or do you not believe that pollution is bad with or without global warming climate change etc. etc.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)the worst offenders should be taxed for costs of already occurring climate change and pollution related health care. It would ease the burden on the FedGov in cases of things like Hurricane Sandy or Cancer treatment for uninsured, things that are in direct correlation with climate change & pollution. Not a tax on consumers, only worst industry offenders.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)How on earth would taxation fix the problem?????
They have built a CO2 elimination machine?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)There are absolutely ZERO ways to "fix the problem", there are only ways to slow it. Even then, it's a pipe dream unless we make this a global action.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)If there are ZERO ways to fix the problem and we can only slow it, then.......What is the point. That isn't acceptable and we had better find a REAL solution fast and taxation isn't it. Time to quit kidding ourselves with little kid notions.
I am advocating elimination and back to harmony with nature. Not just industrial pollution but all.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Give businesses a swift kick in the ass to start developing greener technology or we'll use their taxed money to develop our own and then sell them the patent for billions.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)The government. Nope. We would give the money to some other entity and they would most surely waste the money and take their time. Give it directly to M.I.T. and you might have something. Then require the related industries to use the technology. Yes that would work. I am OK with taxing the hell out of industry if used in that fashion only. NO taxation against the people or the raising of prices. Can you assure that the public wouldn't end up paying for it anyway. Tax breaks only for the people when buying energy saving goods. They stopped the hybrid tax breaks. They should make the most efficient cars have tax breaks for the consumer. In other words no new taxes for the people or higher prices. Taxation on the industries I have no problem with as long as not paid by the consumer by higher prices. Screw that.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Industrial pollution can never be completely eliminated, this I know. No matter how great or awesome the idea of zero pollutants in our atmosphere is the only thing we can really do is force business to develop green technology, and the only way to do that is to impose a tax or fine to jumpstart their ambitions. We can't do it militarily, and we can't do it by force. The only legal way is to tax biggest offenders.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Tax breaks are like they did with the hybrids. Rewards not punishment is the answer. You have no clue.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I remember Ben Stein and the GOP pushing that tripe a couple years ago.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)unbelievable. Carbon taxation will be just that, a punishment. Damn. Crazy is as crazy does.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Taxation is a good way to solve the problem, forcing corporations to find alternative sources of energy.
AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and should be stopped. So......
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Until more efficient and ecologically sound technology comes along. Taxing pollution could invest in such technology. This is also a population issue.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)would help our schools that have laid off thousands of teachers.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)a country problem, its a world problem.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)with you it's a global problem. We now are getting food from all over the world and always the air.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Could try to prolong this thing: 
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I said global pollution effects us all.
dawg
(10,777 posts)People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It is pointless to argue with a thermometer.
It is also an indisputable fact that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere raises global temperatures. Therefore, it follows that it is conclusively true that human activity is raising global temperatures.
The only issue on which reasonable people can disagree is the question of whether or not there is an underlying natural warming trend that human activity is only exacerbating. But regardless, something needs to be done to either mitigate or adapt to what is happening.
And I have yet to read an informed opinion that denies human contributions to global warming from someone who was both highly-educated in climate science and not on the payroll of an oil company or political organization in some capacity.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and a little less cold. The world has been hotter before. Sheesh. But I do not want to pollute the world into a uninhabitable place. Damn. Taxes solve nothing.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Some areas will actually get colder due to disruption of ocean currents. The real problem will be the effect on agriculture and the availability of enough food to feed our swelling population.
Starvation, rising sea-levels, horrible storms, desertification of some areas, dogs and cats sleeping together.
In all seriousness, most people are seriously underestimating the amount of devastation this is likely to bring.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)POLLUTANTS????????????
dawg
(10,777 posts)I definitely think so.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I am not convinced without a doubt that global warming climate change is 100% unequivocally man responsible. I am adamant that we should rid ourselves of pollutants and be in harmony with nature. That is all.
dawg
(10,777 posts)The existence of huge herds of beefcattle results in massive emissions of methane (cow farts). There is no way to reduce man made greenhouse emissions to zero. The question is how to reduce those emissions to an acceptable, sustainable level.
There are various methods that have been proposed to reduce emissions. A carbon tax is one of those. The theory being that people will reduce an activity if it is taxed.
Personally, I think a national carbon budget enforced by a cap and trade mechanism would be a much better approach. (But only in connection with a word wide plan to reduce emissions.)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)No tax. That is a farce. It is not a solution.
dawg
(10,777 posts)It's not a thing.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)getting back to harmony with nature. Man shits that is a fact. He will always pollute. That doesn't mean that he should create Dioxin and it is ok. Or that he should over populate the world so that he suffocates from his own feces.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)...without telling them the production of them is causing the sixth extinction, you have a tough sell.
dawg
(10,777 posts)I think most of the people arguing with you get your point, although you don't believe that we do.
We *should* try to get back to nature and live in ways that are sustainable. Agreed.
It's just that most of us realize that we can't just wish that into being. There has to be some kind of mechanism to enforce it. And it has to be somewhat of a gradual change; otherwise there would be anarchy and disruption on a scale even more massive than climate change is likely to cause.
AAO
(3,300 posts)What disruption could be more massive than the extinction of most land-based species, including humans? This is our future, and may no longer even be avoidable. Maybe 15 years ago we still had a chance, but did virtually nothing. Taxes my ass!
dawg
(10,777 posts)I was just attempting to make the point to the OP that we cannot just "cold turkey" stop 100% of emissions and expect anything less than an economic catastrophe followed by wars and massive starvation.
The solution is a worldwide framework that will reduce emissions to tolerable levels. I favor some sort of cap and trade mechanism, but others favor a carbon tax and I don't have a major problem with that either.
For what it's worth, I don't think we are capable of raising the global temperature sufficient to cause the extinction of most land-based species. (Unless, perhaps, we were trying to do that on purpose.) I could be wrong about that, but life has been proven to be highly adaptable in the past, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so in the future. But we are certainly working toward the demise of our technological civilization and the decimation (probably literally) of our population. And that would be very bad.
AAO
(3,300 posts)I could be exaggerating the extinction thing, but I don't think that enough evolutionary adaptability can take place in 20-30 years, but what do I know? I agree with your approach to a solution. I also think - after seeing plutocracy in action - it will probably take a major scientific breakthrough, in addition to the framework you described to prevent horrible consequences - even for those off us "exceptional humans" ( 
) fortunate to live in the US of A.
Nice to chat with a kindred spirit!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Not only do cattle produce methane, a lot of carbon is released from natural sinks when pastures are created. Without man, these problems would not exist, and they are significant.
Transporting, packaging, and refrigerating the meat is also not a carbon free process.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Although I do love a good burger; I shouldn't have give them up completely. They should just be an occasional treat, and one that I'm forced to really pay-up for.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)let's tax the cows. We cant move away from eating cattle. No no no......
AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)you've posted elsewhere so I'll let it go.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Regie, in the light of a new day, and minus a snootfull of vodka, I want to call a truce on this entire thread. You've been bashed enough for your opinions, and I've had a great time giving you shit about it. All in good fun, though! Peace brother.
We truly are on the same side. There is just one thing that we are not. I might be someday. I just haven't made up my mind on CC & GW. CO2 is one problem of many. I don't want mercury in my fish either and on and on. I don't stop there though. I want all pollutants reduced or eliminated. The point I was trying to make is that even though a person might not be convinced of CC & GW they still could be on your side. Don't alienate them. You need them. If they believe the E.P.A. and all regulations on pollutants needs abolished then most definitely. I'll be right there with you.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I think you should go play somewhere else.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)aletier_v
(1,773 posts)Oh, the woe, the woe.
dawg
(10,777 posts)But we would still have some cold winters. Cold winters happen. Weather is variable.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)As said in my reply to aletier, look at what happened in 2010 and 2011. As far as I can recall, just 5 years ago, scientists were saying that we'd see something on the order of 20 record highs for every record low(or something), by 2100. Now with those two winters in mind, and some research beginning to indicate that extreme winters may become more common as well, I'm calling this into question.
I think GreenMan had a couple of videos explaining how such extreme cold could still occur in an increasingly warming planet. I'll try to see if I can dig them up sometime.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Do these occurrences neatly cancel each other out to such the point that we don't have to measure global average temperatures?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)of global warming.
The formula that says GW= "it's getting hotter and hotter everywhere all the time" is fauxish and moronic.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And other deludalists.
In the us 2010 had some record snowfalls, not record low temperatures. Europe indeed had an unusually cold winter (along with record breaking summer heat waves), as the mitigating effect of the arctic ice cap on European weather patterns diminishes due to, ER, global warming and the shrinking of that ice cap.
The models predict more severe weather, not just increasing mean temperatures, and more severe will include regions where it will get colder than usual in winter.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Do you think global warming is like putting the Earth in a giant convection oven, so that it warms evenly over the whole surface?
And BTW, what is your definition of "worst winter"? Coldest? Wettest? Longest? Windiest? Most extreme?
Check out the link between increased absorption of energy in the atmosphere and wild weather and then think about that, before you answer.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Wildest weather? This is normal to you? Last year was the warmest on record.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)That climate change may in fact, be a double-edged sword as far as temperatures go. The fact that we had two really nasty winters back to back in 2010/2011, maybe be partly coincidental, in of themselves, I suppose, but overall, maybe not so much. I recall hearing Carl Sagan made this same prediction sometime in the '90s; I'll have to see if I can find it again.
Javaman
(65,668 posts)which leads to heavier snow and rain falls.
that's how climate change works when the temps go up.;
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It doesn't mean everywhere gets a little warmer and we all go on with our day.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, you may remember the cold snap of February '96......that was highly unusual, as temps went as far down as -60*F in some parts of the country: How about Tower, Minn., for example? I have wondered from time to time, if ACC may have played a role in that event.....
Javaman
(65,668 posts)with more moisture, you have heavier snow and rain falls.
nice try with the denier logic. It failed and failed predictably.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
And I have yet to read an informed opinion that denies human contributions to global warming from someone who was both highly-educated in climate science and not on the payroll of an oil company or political organization in some capacity.
I suppose there might be a few mavericks out there, but yes, I would think that the vast majority are indeed being paid off, as far as what I've seen so far.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)provacatuer
Matariki
(18,775 posts)The conceit of anti-intellectualism is that if you are ignorant of something no one else can possibly know it either.
You can not have done much research on this topic or you wouldn't be posting such ignorant things like "I personally wouldn't mind a little more warmth". A rise in the earth's average temperature of even a couple degrees can, probably will, be a terrible disaster, killing many people. It will NOT be you having more comfortable days sipping iced tea on you veranda.
Educate yourself:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)stop being anti-intellectual. Your ignorance of the earth's billions of years temperature and co2 levels history are astounding.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Read the Nasa article and get back to me.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Snip> Plate collisions disrupt these carbon fluxes in a variety of ways, some tending to elevate and some tending to lower the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. It has been suggested that the Eocene, the early warm trend 55 million years ago, was caused by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and that a subsequent decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide led to the cooling trend over the past 52 million years. One mechanism proposed as a cause of this decrease in carbon dioxide is that mountain uplift lead to enhanced weathering of silicate rocks, and thus removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
In addition, the collision of India and Asia led to the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas. While topography may not be enough to explain the cooling trends, another mechanism may account for changing climate. The uplift may have caused both an increase in the global rate of chemical erosion, as well as erode fresh minerals that are rapidly transported to lower elevations, which are warmer and moister and allow chemical weathering to happen more efficiently. Through these mechanisms, then, it has been hypothesized that the tectonically driven uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas is the prime cause of the post-Eocene cooling trend.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
This cooling took MILLIONS of years! We are seeing all this wiped away in a decade!
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
maybe this
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
The last 200 yrs or even the last 400k yrs is not the big picture of an earth that is billions of years old.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)you didn't read it did you. My graphs went back hundreds of thousands of years. Not a thousand. Wrong......
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)See my links. Or watch this video:
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)with graphs that go back 10,000 yrs then.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Go to the 3:40 mark of this video and it will explain why:
&feature=relatedHere is NOAA's actual link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)they only go back a few hundred years. You don't believe in evolution and that the world is billions of years old?
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Look at the link again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
It re-butts your clams about the data for the past 10,000 years.
Yes the Earth has been much warmer and much colder over the entire course of it's history but scientists know what mechanism's cause this. In our current state of warming with all the natural mechanism's plugged in to their models, the hockey stick warming is a huge anomaly that can only be explained by humans flooding the atmosphere with extra CO2.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)it's been much warmer many times in the past. Just because you have a silly slice of time for the last 200 yrs means nothing. Nothing is proven yet.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)And YOU KNOW IT DOES!!!! And I have explained to you over and over and over and over why it was warmer in the past and what the natural mechanism was and why we are currently in anomaly and yet you keep acting ignorant. This little game is getting old. You are either willfully ignorant or have the comprehension of a 2nd grader.
Javaman
(65,668 posts)trying to argue with them, is like trying to argue with a 5 year old.
dawg
(10,777 posts)I don't think it's going to happen, and I don't think it would happen with 435 Democrats in the House and 100 in the Senate.
There needs to be some kind of mechanism to control greenhouse emissions, but it needs to be a worldwide program and not a nation-specific one. One country acting alone would be pointless.
and a tax is not the answer. I prefer an elimination. Not having it in my environment vs having a taxed pollutant.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)go for tax breaks over more taxation.
AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)their corporate taxes and removed loop holes and write offs.
AAO
(3,300 posts)How about we also eliminate all the billions in subsidies to the greatest polluters and use that money for helping upgrade the power grid to support the new power and battery solutions that may develop in time to save us from the worst predictions.
ret5hd
(22,483 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The only way to make it go away is to tax it out of existence.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Is all well and good, but I'll stick with the science, thanks.
I think beliefs and feelings are better saved for things like church and personal relationships.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and then you can feel appropriately about the subject. Either way pollution is bad and needs to be eliminated. Taxation will solve nothing.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Come on man, does it really cause it? It being "bad" seems like a belief to me
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)ambiguous.
War Horse
(931 posts)FTA: Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)why on earth do you persist to convince me that we are causing it? Do you not believe that pollution is the cause? Do you not believe that our only hope is by removing the pollution? I don't get it at all. Are we not in agreement that we need to eliminate pollution? If not all at least the CO2? If not what is the point of taxing green house gases?
War Horse
(931 posts)and not expect people to react severely (and apparently also rashly) to it. Surely you know that we have a huge and heavily funded AGW denialism industry on our hands.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)blindsided by your position you are. It's the pollutants that are the problem. Not whether or not we are causing the warming.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)really now? Come on!!!
War Horse
(931 posts)Yes, pollutants are a problem. There's a hell of a lot of them that we need to worry about. And there seriously is a case to be made for us as a species to be in more in tune with mother nature.
But:
Is AGW a real problem that somehow should be dealt with?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)dealing with the cause? If pollutants are a problem and we begin to morally deal with them wouldn't the AGW be a mute point?
War Horse
(931 posts)You obviously own a pc/mac, and as such you are contributing to said pollution. Sorry.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)What is your point then on this topic?
Javaman
(65,668 posts)he points up the fact that you are also contributing to the problem and you call him a "doomsayer"? that's very weird.
AAO
(3,300 posts)In this scenario we aren't worried about most pollutants. Green house gasses will end life on this planet, most specifically CO2, not pesticides, fertilizers or other man-made pollutants.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)In fact I think there will come a time when we need genetically engineered food. With 7 billion people in the world and climate change creating super storms, floods, and droughts, I don't think we will be able to feed the world without it.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)into their models? Fact is, if anything we should be on a very slow cooling trend right due to the Milankovitch and solar cycles and yet we are warming at a rate that is 1000 times faster than anything that has ever been observed. The science behind this is rock solid.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)from a Billion of year old earth.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The Younger Dryas period is an exception, though: some scientists say that the Earth's temperature may have gone up by as much as 7*C in just several decades!
So yeah, it's still rather rare, though, and I think at least a good part of the warming we've seen over the years might not have happened if we hadn't been pumping so much Co2 into the air.
AAO
(3,300 posts)We are on a trajectory to oblivion. I hope Reggie will be around to see the worst of it. Maybe by then he'll be a believer.
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)Look, the real problem here is that people are monkeys. Our DNA is hardwired to tribal behavior of groups numbering a few dozen. Our time horizon is hard coded to a few weeks to a couple of seasons. We're wired to eat and make more monkeys, not to contemplate death.
By all means keeping discussing and acting but be aware of the limitations of your audience. Most likely AGW gets resolved the old fashioned way, ie lots of death.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)just trying to help. Sorry.....
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)unlike the rest of us ignorant fucks, right?
Smarm, smug assholes who thrive on contrarianism without understanding what this is really about or what really is at stake.
My IPCC-attached friends @ my workplace heavily disagree. But hey... only correlations right.....
morningfog
(18,115 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)deny this
http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/cretaceous_home.html
I know you will......
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)that caused the warming and cooling to occur. The rise of the Himalayas is what they believe caused the cooling to occur and this took millions of years. See my link above.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)not about Global cooling. If we were going into another ice age I don't believe this would be an issue other that pollution is not good for health. I understand the hypothesis you have stated. Not sure why you're on cooling and not warming. Temperatures have increased in the past dramatically in a short period of time.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Your link makes the point it was warmer over 50 million years ago which is true. The reason it cooled was because of the rise of the Himalayas. Not sure why you posted that link now?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)the right issue.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Fill me in on what the "right issue" has changed to?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)always has been. Isn't that the cause of global warming? Instead you bring up cooling when you accuse me of denying CC & GW?
How do you explain this?
from
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)It's also based on old data. Our current temperature is above the Medieval warming period as I pointed out before and you ignored http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html . There has been cooling and warming for billions of years but climate scientists understand the mechanism of these occurrences. Your graph is meaningless without knowing if what set off the warming and coolings throughout Earth's history was natural or not. They know very clearly that the warming we are seeing currently is NOT natural but caused by humans. Got it?
Javaman
(65,668 posts)anyone that has called him on that crazy graph never gets a responce.
Nederland
(9,979 posts)See post #462 for an explanation.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)from human-caused climate change we are experiencing now. You provided nothing which I, nor any logical person need to deny.
AAO
(3,300 posts)About Eons, Epochs, Etc.
Since I was a youngster, I have loved paleontology. It wasn't just the dinosaurs that fascinated me, but it was the amazing progression of Life on Earth in all it's varied and multifarious expressions. It inspires nothing but awe.
My educational and occupational pursuits took me down a different path, but my interest never waned. This website is the result of my continued passion. It is a website dedicated to the lay person in love with paleontology. A website whose approach is not simplistic nor painted with broad brushstrokes. Nor does it contain lists of species and overly-technical pronouncements. Like the Goldilocks fairy tale, I hope the readers will find this information "just right".
In summary, my goals for this site are the following:
Provide information (backed by current scientific research) about the various eons, eras, epochs, etc. of this wonderful planet of ours.
Present the facts on a level that the general reader will understand and at the same time be challenged and inspired.
Create a well-organized and easy-to navigate website that will enhance the learning experience.
Happy Reading!
J.E. Morris
ret5hd
(22,483 posts)brewens
(15,359 posts)no one thought dumping waste in a big river would ever amount to much and look how that turned out. I'm leaning toward believing global warming is already happening.
I'm not totally convinced it's happening yet or that the scientists have figured out just what will happen. Kind of like how I'm not convinced the cops figured out just what happened in the O.J. case. I always try an be aware when I'm relying on someones experts to make up my mind. I know I will tend to side with who I"m predisposed to believe. In the case of climate, it's more like disbelieving the corporate deniers. Their claiming it's all a hoax is definitely a lie. I know they are paid to say that.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)aren't allowed in the E/E group.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)if CO2 levels are greatly reduced from the belief that they are harmful to your health or that they are reduced because it's causing our earth's temperature to rise. Doesn't the same result happen? What is the point? Taxation? I don't get it. Is it only CO2 that is harmful not other pollutants. Wouldn't it be better to move away from harmful pollutants? Why is it so important to push "Global Warming"? Why not push "Harmony with Nature"?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The only reason CO2 is "harmful to your health" is because they warm the earth and will result in drought & famine.
There is much more science illustrating that current CO2 levels trap above baseline heat, than any that suggest these levels harm us physically.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think taxation is a carbon shell game that is bullshit.
Yes, its good to stop polluting. Yes, harmony with nature is good, but only if you can show the opposite (infinite growth civilization that cultivate & destroys nature) is bad; the most obvious reason it is bad is because it is causing the 6th extinction on earth by warming the globe!
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and ad hominem attacks, whether on other DUers or on scientists.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)no matter where on the graph a person falls or whether they are a scientist or not. The fact is pollution is bad. Some must be tolerated depending on what it is. Example "man shits". However as I have stated it doesn't mean man should procreate to the point that he suffocates on everyone's feces. Nature has a remedy for that. I only stated that pollution is our common enemy and that this division on whether we are causing global warming is not necessary. The fact is, it's not good period. We live in a finite world. We need to treat everything as it were our own backyard. That everyone is family. Real simple, but as always, no matter what side of the political spectrum your on, the same intolerant behavior exists. Unable to see the forest for the trees. Would I like to see us reducing natural pollution (naturally occurring but man made) to acceptable levels? Yes. Would I like to see unnatural pollution (man made) being eliminated? Yes. So in essence I have seen nothing other than the intolerable "must believe in global warming, climate change etc." and if you don't you're ignorant responses. Yep that helps the cause greatly. Yes I am a Democrat but am not tolerant of far left closed mindedness. It's not acceptable and it's was and will be the demise of the Republicans if they do not change. As a Democrat I feel it's my duty to not let it happen to our party. I will not waiver from that.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Why? Essentially by tautology; the definition of pollution is:
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects
There are different types of pollution. They have different effects (all of which is harmful, or otherwise it would not be considered to be a pollutant).
CO2's harmful effect is trapping heat. Its not just bad/pollution because it looks yucky. Its "pollution" because it traps heat. Its actually entirely a natural substance, but its source from humans and effect is above natural levels in recent history.
If you don't agree that it traps heat, you cannot classify CO2 as a pollutant and your entire argument about reducing CO2 because pollution is "bad" (since its not a pollutant anymore) falls apart. At that point, you just become a climate denier.
On edit: Its also associated with ocean acidification as mentioned above, but I don't know if you believe it causes that or correlates to that. Also, of course it, as all gases do, has a toxic level that isn't even relevant in the context of the current discussion, as we will never make it there in our atmosphere.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Anything that causes a health hazard indirectly or directly is a pollutant. As I stated which escaped you is the natural man made and unnatural man made. Read it again.
the definition of pollution is:
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects
Are you saying that CO2 has harmful effects or not?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Yes or no
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)by ignoring my question.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are you saying that CO2 has harmful effects or not?
CO2 is not harmful to organism at these levels (.04%) but may be toxic at 5% (which is outside the realm of this discussion). Oxygen is also toxic in too high of levels, so is it a pollutant?
CO2 is otherwise only harmful (classifiable as a pollutant) due to its effects on climate. I cannot yet determine if you believe in those effects or not.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)an over abundance of CO2 is harmful to the environment but not necessarily the cause of a temperature increase and I don't think it matters. If I have bad eggs I'm going to look at the chicken. I also stated it needs to be reduced as it can't be eliminated because it's naturally occurring.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its magically bad when its a fraction of the toxic levels, but it can't trap heat (observable in a simple experiment).
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)The world is the hottest it has ever been! LOL. No back during the dinosaur age when Freddy was driving around in his automobile he was the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The earth supposedly started as a molten orb. It was very hot.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"an over abundance of CO2 is harmful to the environment but not necessarily the cause of a temperature increase"
Show us a study that backs your statement, if one exists. Oil company studies do not count.
AAO
(3,300 posts)That is why you are meeting some resistance. Pollution is bad. Yeah, we get that - by definition it is not preferable to an unpolluted environment. What is irking me is that the topic of global warming (and yes that is what it is - I'm not going to dumb down the conversation for right-wingers) is about a small subset of global pollutants. We are specifically talking about CO2. Since you cannot acknowledge that, it make people thing you are a troll.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)of either the far right or far left. I am a democrat however. I am as with others, am getting very tired of these far from center individuals labeling our party with nonsense agenda. It creamed the Repugs this election and I DO NOT want to see it happen to my party. As far as acknowledgement, grapple with this. I do not want the world I live in to have normal temps and be polluted to hell and back with high taxation. That seems to be yours and others goal. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean I don't understand what your group is trying to convince me of. I am simply not convinced either way. I however do want to reduce CO2. So go ahead and alienate me. Real smart.
AAO
(3,300 posts)I am tolerant of anyone that is sane and able to process information logically and - most importantly - is able to distinguish between fact and propaganda - no matter where it comes from. That makes me intolerant of GW deniers - and GW confusers and FUD purveyors.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)then it is you who is the denier
from
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
you see the whole notion of a 200 yr graph of a world that is billions of years old is a crock. This represents the big picture. Not a slice of a moment in time that helps further your agenda of taxation instead of tax breaks.
AAO
(3,300 posts) AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I do believe things COULD get really, really bad if this problem isn't addressed. I just don't think that a 6*C scenario is necessarily inevitable, that's all? Am I a lukewarmer because of that?
retread
(3,919 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)because I have posted the earth is billions of years old. Bad try.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...simply because he has a different opinion than you!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... and evolution is a hoax too.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)that we should lovingly accept pollution because it will help us to evolve?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that's exactly what I was saying.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)we need pollution to evolve.....obviously because I don't see how evolution was the least bit relevant to the post.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It's perfectly logical, on a 6000 year old Earth.
I dare you to prove otherwise.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I bet you've proved nothing. You only take only people's word on that. I on the other hand trust neither. So both sides hate me. I don't give a rats ass.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... one making serious claims.
I suggest you look up the definition of "mocking."
You're one extra smart feller.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)you have many. Making the claim about evolution or global warming is a serious claim. I however as it escapes you made only one claim. That pollutants are bad and need to be eliminated. So continue mock on....I smella fart
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... go wipe.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)****
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... I'm so honored. However...
.. I won't be joining you under the bridge.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)yours. I understand.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)rectangular box text since you don't believe in it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I'm looking for context.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)what an agnostic is? Look it up. Tax the crap out of the wealthy!!!!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If you support taxing the wealthy, just let a carbon tax or any other climate change related tax be another log on the tax of the wealthy.
That isn't all that needs done, but will help.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Tax breaks for the public is what will motivate them. Not more taxes. Rewards not punishment for the public is a motivator.
AAO
(3,300 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)and you've probably just jumped onto hundreds of "lists" that thousands of DUers keep for being out of lockstep on the issue.
Props to you though for sticking around and answering all the insults. Says a lot about you.
I sometimes find myself wondering if any of the change could be attributed to magma coming closer to the Earth's surface. It seems like there have been more violent earthquakes in recent memory than in times past... (for anyone else reading this post; I'm not saying I don't agree that humans are responsible for at least some of the change in temperature... so no need to add me to any lists that I'm not already on).
An interesting control experiment would have been to measure the temperature of soil hundreds if not thousands of feet below the surface while at the same time measuring the temperature above. Anyone who's been in a deep cave knows they aren't cooler than surface ambient temperature, they're HOTTER and more moist.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about removing polution from the environment though.
I have to add that I find it hilarious a certain DUer thinks you should be banned for this post as if it puts you in the same league with misogynists and homophobes. That's rich.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)my skull is hard, but my eyes and ears are open.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... doubting that climate change is man-caused. The vast majority of climate scientists know more than you do and they are not agnostic.
I am however, completely sure that there is nothing we are going to do about it, or even really CAN do about it for that matter as a practical matter. Implementing any real solution would require the world to cooperate, and that's not happening, period.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)history of climate change i began to wonder what had caused earlier shifts and how we could know humans were the cause of this one.
i also wondered why, if we were so sure humans were the cause, the PTB were continuing to expand production and their own consumption while pushing austerity on the masses.
and why they were so adamantly opposed to various regulations & their pet remedy was carbon trading, a fix that would allow them to create a new market & make beaucoup bucks by gaming it, just as they've done to every market.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I tend to not respond to you because you put me on ignore, but that explains a whole lot, right there.
We're sure that humans are the cause and the PTB do not give a shit about the environment, never have, and never will. Their "solution" is geoengineering.
(Transcript here.)
Carbon trading is not as profitable as doing nothing and just using cheap stratospheric sulfate aerosols would have an immediate impact.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)14 word wonder!!!
jpak
(41,780 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)
ugh
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Many of you have passed through history
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...to the burning of witches? News flash: Merely disparaging the opinions of others is not persecution.
Putting up with other people making negative comments about your opinions is the price of freedom in a free society. We are not all obligated to smile beatifically and say, "Thank you for sharing!" regardless of whatever bullshit comes out of someone else's mouth labeled as an opinion.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)not taking kindly to insults and my freedom to deliver a appropriate response. You see that responsibility starts with the next person. Not the initiator of the conversation unless they attack in some fashion initially. Once people cross that line they are no longer afforded social niceties.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...entitles you to special consideration, that so as long as you think you start out politely, then no matter how wacky or ill-informed your soapbox spiel strikes other people, then everyone has to receive your "wisdom" politely and deferentially, otherwise they're persecuting you like an alleged Salem witch?
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sometimes scoffing at what someone says, no matter how nicely they think they're saying it, is a perfectly understandable reaction. And even when it isn't, you're playing the part of "precious little snowflake" if you think getting a less than polite reception is tantamount to persecution.
Marco Rubio was being very polite when he called the age of the earth "one of the great mysteries". I don't care how nicely he said it. He deserves laughter and scorn for that kind of ignorance and/or pandering. Giving him just that is not burning him at the stake, not even close.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I never said that and you know it I hope. I said that whomever initiates deserves no social niceties. As for as CC and GW it doesn't matter to me. It's the pollutants I am after. So you go after your CC and GW and I'll go after the cause. Real smart to alienate those that actually are after the same thing. Less pollutants. Oh the irony!
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Even if your starry-eyed, look-at-me-I'm-bold-thinker "stop all pollution!" plan were feasible (and it isn't), most of the negative reaction you're getting is to your denial of the near 100% probability that humans are responsible for most current climate change.
You keep muddying the waters by confusing criticism of your GW stance with criticism of your "stop all pollution!" plan. I think the latter deserves more criticism for being far more unlikely than changing behavior via taxation, but I don't think many people even get that far before your GW denialism smacks them in the face and derails further consideration.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)they are alienating a mutual comrade who wants the same thing but just so happens to not be convinced on the CC and GW movement. That will help the cause. Give it time, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
AAO
(3,300 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)will save us from the dreaded CC & GW..
AAO
(3,300 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)They'll be gone by spring.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Oh god it's spreading
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)You would have had to work in the same lab as I did. It's a small program.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)climate science? A phd? What actual physical research have you done from scratch? Ice core samples? I would like to hear from you if you are what you say you are.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)My research focus was on interaction of organismal metabolism with Middle Cambrian O2 concentration.
And the ph.d itself was in another field, not in climate science. I'd tell you that field but that info coupled with the other post and this one would probably be able to positively ID me down to two or three other people.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
Xipe Totec
(44,554 posts)True enough.
Climate change events including the Permian Extinction—When Life Nearly Came to an End
A quarter of a billion years ago, long before dinosaurs or mammals evolved, the 10-foot (0.3-meter) predator Dinogorgon, whose skull is shown here, hunted floodplains in the heart of today's South Africa. In less than a million years Dinogorgon vanished in the greatest mass extinction ever, along with about nine of every ten plant and animal species on the planet.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian-extinction/
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Xipe Totec
(44,554 posts)I think it is well within our capabilities.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Even so, you don't need to look at mass extinction theories to be legitimately concerned about AGW and it's effects.
Xipe Totec
(44,554 posts)No oops will suffice.
AAO
(3,300 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It needs to stop or food production will be badly impacted, thereby killing millions or billions of people. The drought already in effect in the U.S. is getting worse.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)then how do you propose to stop it? I'm not sure you meant that. To me it's not the effect that is the problem it's the cause.
randome
(34,845 posts)We need more emphasis on electric cars. We need more solar panel production. We can even build space mirrors in orbit to reflect some of the heat away.
I'm in favor of nuclear energy if it can be made safer because it generates less pollution. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea and I can sure as hell understand why but we're getting close, I think, to an emergency situation.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)after the effect. The solution is and always will be going after the problem source.
randome
(34,845 posts)The solutions I suggested reduce the effects and that's the only thing that matters.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)from the beginning. Go after the source. I really don't care whether CC or GW is real it's not that important to me. However the pollutants are.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)climate scientists. Specifically, global climate change is occurring and that change is largely man-made (through excess emissions of greenhouse gases).
Do you base your opinion on any data or any theory, other than your mere assertion?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)but any who
http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming
To me it doesn't matter. It does matter that CO2 is reduced.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Citing a known industry sponsored denier like S. Fred Singer?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I posted many more that weren't your so called fake academics. Where were you then. Silence.........look in thread and then get back to me.....
AAO
(3,300 posts) WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)IT'S JUST BAD!
SO STOP IT! STOP IT NOW!
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)if it didn't have harmful effects.
There is much more that comes out of a tailpipe than CO2
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)quickly as possible, be eliminated."
P.S. GMO foods aren't "pollution."
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I disagree on the GMO's.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I personally, after months and months of research, have come to the conclusion that certain human activities are contributing to, and/or even causing, at least a very significant portion, if not the majority, of today's climate change; over 90% of scientists agree on this, as far as I know.
However, though, I also disagree with the "Climate Cassandras" out there. Here's just a few reasons why:
1.)The worst-case scenarios(in the case of temperature, 6-7*C by 2100 under BAU, if most or all feedbacks play out to their worst possible extent) are possible, but not at all inevitable.
2.)Human extinction is technically not possible because of climate change alone, contrary to the views of some. Obviously, we can't predict what else will happen 10, 100, or even 1,000 years from now. But given that out ancestors have in fact, survived a few disasters about as bad, and in certain cases, far more acute, than even the worst case of AGW could be; the eruption of Toba, a supervolcano about as powerful as Yellowstone, 72k years ago, took the human population from some millions, down to about 100,000 or so people.(The planet dodged a major bullet overall, though: current scientific evidence says that Toba, suprisingly enough, actually didn't cause any major extinctions. Research indicates that we may not be so fortunate if Yellowstone blows, though. Only time will tell), I just can't give any credence to this particular theory.
3.)There do seem to be a few on here who seem to be of the opinion that it's too late to do anything about climate change. The vast majority of scientific research I've seen seems to indicate otherwise. One article I often link to is a Skeptical Science post concerning a well-known Pacala & Sokolow piece on climate "wedges". It's from 2004, so it's a bit old, but there's plenty of decent information. Here, see for yourself:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solving-global-warming-not-easy-but-not-too-hard.html
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)
I recced this thread because he presented his opinion in a respectful manner, and that he at least accepts the fact that nobody wants a polluted world.
I don't see why you have to resort to this.
Edit: Okay, it seems like I overlooked the part where he claimed it was a scam, so I've decided to unrec it(yes, that does happen).
AAO
(3,300 posts)Can't find anything to agree with us on?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Response to AAO (Reply #326)
Electric Monk This message was self-deleted by its author.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Most people who talk about an extinction threat are either engaged in hyperbole or don't know what they're talking about. Deaths of millions or even billions of people would be bad enough, however, and there are potential scenarios of moderate probability for ecological/economic/energy/military crises on that kind of scale.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And to be perfectly honest, I don't doubt that there are some crises that may indeed be inevitable, such as water conflicts in the Middle East, most of Africa, and other places.
Also, in case you're wondering, I recced this thread, not just because he was respectful in posting his opinion, even though I disagree with his views on AGW, but also because he does recognize that pollution is a major issue(I've also recced some threads by some of E & E's "Cassandras" even though I definitely disagree with them on some things). And to be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that you don't necessarily always need to mention AGW to have a candid talk about environmental pollution; look at the strip-mining of the Appalachians for example. Even some who may be skeptical of AGW will have to agree that has been terribly harmful in many ways. Hell, a similar argument can be made for fracking, too.
I do believe that AGW is real, and that it's an urgent problem that should be dealt with. But I'll also give a little credit to those people who may be skeptical about AGW, but are willing to admit that pollution, period, is a problem that should continued to be addressed & tackled. It gives me some hope that maybe one day, they'll come around to accepting AGW, too.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)who like you apparently believe Reagan's "trees cause pollution" bullshit.
I mean, of all the idiotic shit to push on a non-RW site, this has got to be tops.
"I do not believe that little people know for sure without a doubt that humans are the cause....I however believe that all pollution should as quickly as possible, be eliminated."
The "little people" want to know why?
"The foolhearted attempt at modifying nature will destroy us all."
Have you really thought this position through? On one hand, you're trying to deny climate change. On the other hand, you're advocating the elimination of all pollution. And on one foot, unless you're a mutant with three hands, you're claiming that eliminating pollution, the man-made causes of climate change is a "foolhearted attempt at modifying nature."
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But you never know. With the right information, he might just come around the bend......I did, a couple years back.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you want my motivations for doing so, here's a couple comments I made:
I personally, after months and months of research, have come to the conclusion that certain human activities are contributing to, and/or even causing, at least a very significant portion, if not the majority, of today's climate change; over 90% of scientists agree on this, as far as I know.
However, though, I also disagree with the "Climate Cassandras" out there. Here's just a few reasons why:
1.)The worst-case scenarios(in the case of temperature, 6-7*C by 2100 under BAU, if most or all feedbacks play out to their worst possible extent) are possible, but not at all inevitable.
2.)Human extinction is technically not possible because of climate change alone, contrary to the views of some. Obviously, we can't predict what else will happen 10, 100, or even 1,000 years from now. But given that out ancestors have in fact, survived a few disasters about as bad, and in certain cases, far more acute, than even the worst case of AGW could be; the eruption of Toba, a supervolcano about as powerful as Yellowstone, 72k years ago, took the human population from some millions, down to about 100,000 or so people.(The planet dodged a major bullet overall, though: current scientific evidence says that Toba, suprisingly enough, actually didn't cause any major extinctions. Research indicates that we may not be so fortunate if Yellowstone blows, though. Only time will tell), I just can't give any credence to this particular theory.
3.)There do seem to be a few on here who seem to be of the opinion that it's too late to do anything about climate change. The vast majority of scientific research I've seen seems to indicate otherwise. One article I often link to is a Skeptical Science post concerning a well-known Pacala & Sokolow piece on climate "wedges". It's from 2004, so it's a bit old, but there's plenty of decent information. Here, see for yourself:
And to be perfectly honest, I don't doubt that there are some crises that may indeed be inevitable, such as water conflicts in the Middle East, most of Africa, and other places.
Also, in case you're wondering, I recced this thread, not just because he was respectful in posting his opinion, even though I disagree with his views on AGW, but also because he does recognize that pollution is a major issue(I've also recced some threads by some of E & E's "Cassandras" even though I definitely disagree with them on some things). And to be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that you don't necessarily always need to mention AGW to have a candid talk about environmental pollution; look at the strip-mining of the Appalachians for example. Even some who may be skeptical of AGW will have to agree that has been terribly harmful in many ways. Hell, a similar argument can be made for fracking, too.
I do believe that AGW is real, and that it's an urgent problem that should be dealt with. But I'll also give a little credit to those people who may be skeptical about AGW, but are willing to admit that pollution, period, is a problem that should continued to be addressed & tackled. It gives me some hope that maybe one day, they'll come around to accepting AGW, too.
It may sound strange, I know, but it's the straight truth.
(underlines not in the original comments, but added for emphasis)
EDIT: Unfortunately, I admit that I accidentally overlooked his "AGW is a scam" comment. And when I did find it, I decided to unrec the thread.
hatrack
(64,824 posts)They won't be believed anyway. Why worry?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The problem is, as I've explained before, too much focus on gloom-and-doom has not exactly been helpful in waking people up.....
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Thank the goddess I have my official appointment papers right here.
We're all doomed, I tell you - DOOMED!!!!
hatrack
(64,824 posts) lalalu
(1,663 posts)but there is no doubt that humans have sped up those changes and produced unnatural changes the earth is not prepared for.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last time things happened this quickly was at the end of the Younger Dryas period......and not since, until the Industrial Age started.
AAO
(3,300 posts)They will continue to consume until they finally consume themselves. Pretty fucking sad.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Do you really think that all the shit we have Ben pumping into the atmosphere for the last couple of hundred years has had no effect?
Seriously?
lol talk about going throuh life with blinders on,
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)1. If you are correct then I am wrong.
2. I am never wrong.
3. Therefore, you cannot be correct.
It's really pretty simple when you strip the issue down to its basics like this.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)So I am not convinced about CC & GW but I am convinced that pollutants are bad. Somehow in your mind if CC & GW are a man made reality then how am I wrong? If CC & GW are not man made you will be wrong. I simply stated I do not believe in CC & GW. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a possibility. I stated I was an agnostic on CC & GW. I can't believe or disbelieve. That is an agnostic I hope you know. It's not an important issue for me to understand that pollutants are bad and need to be addressed. Being an agnostic on this issue I would attempt to disprove both the believer and non believer. I would try to convince them that they simply don't know. You don't understand the concept do you?
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I myself got labelled a denier for not agreeing with certain of the "Cassandra" positions, and unlike R.R. here, I really do believe in ACC.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I neither believe or disbelieve. That should be a OK stance for rational people. I however as you well know am totally against pollutants.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)(on your mastery of the elementary school playground witty repartee handbook, 1947 edition)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)By your post I thought that was who I was dealing with.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)They're srs bzns....
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
Logical
(22,457 posts)Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)At least it would eat up a lot less bandwidth than that fucking uselsss Greenland graph.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And at least you did explain your opinion in a thoughtful manner, so that does still earn some kudos from me.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I/E you have it mastered.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)After all if someone believes that the Earth is the center of the Universe why should we at DU consider it a black and white position.
Maybe Copernicus is only 83% correct.
Let's never arrive at any objective facts no matter how thorough the peer review data is and even given the fact that the scientists who formed the basis of the skeptics came out a year ago and confirmed that the base data that all of the climate scientists were using were in fact correct.
When even the Koch brother's hand picked scientists come back to them and tell them that no climate change is an objective fact and that it is caused by human activity then who are we to take a stand for science. After all some idiot that doesn't even know how old the earth is 'believes' that there could be some other answer to all of this.
Logical
(22,457 posts)The GOP does!
It might be 100% cased by people or 40%! But emotion is not logic!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)There's a 5% possibility some other magical event is causing it.
Just FYI, there exist no evidence for the 5% possibility.
Scientists would love for someone to come up with an interesting and novel and heretofore unimagined explanation.
So far that has not happened. And the OP certainly hasn't done that.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)There is no credible scientific disputation to this.
Here are some other indisputable 100% facts.
We are using huge amounts of carbon based fuel that is resulting in a huge amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
It is having an impact on the climate and changing it.
It is being absorbed by the Oceans.
All of those statements are 100% true. Not 90% not 40%.
Now you might want to argue that it is not a bad thing, that acidifying the Oceans is not something to be worried about. Or like the author of this idiotic OP you might think that getting 'a little warmer' is not a bad thing.
Those are things that can be debated but the four statements I presented above are clearly black and white statements.
The OPs approach is the opposite of logic. He is using an eisogetical approach where he has his conclusion and tries to find something that agrees with it. He isn't aware that he is using RW sources that have been completely discredited. An exegetical or logical approach would be to work from the data and arrive at conclusions. He doesn't do that. His epistomological approach is rather infantile and should be roundly shamed. His methodolgy is 100% wrong it is the same approach that a fundamentalist uses when he searches the bible to find a snippet that he agrees with.
It is the OP that mimicks RW thought (and links to sources that support Inhofe)
Here is the Wikipedia summary of Ocean Acidificaiton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
It states that somewhere between 30-40% of the carbon from human activity that goes into the atmosphere is being absorbed by the Ocean and that this can be widely tested and proved.
Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, rivers and lakes.[2][3] To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing the ocean's "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans,[5][6]
Just exactly how is that statement not 100% true and what is the scientific basis for you believing that it is not 100% true?
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)increased carbon in the atmosphere is a precursor to climate change/global warming.
since the widespread use of fossil fuels and industrialization by man, carbon levels in the atmosphere have increased dramatically.
we're screwed.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Human contribution is extremely minute in global warming. The Earth has gone through several times where it has been extremely warm and when it has been extremely cold.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)matter so much when we are poisoning the earth? Shouldn't that be our priority?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)with almost 8 billion people?
Ah, thought so....
The problem is not whether it ever was this hot before. The question is whether civilization as it stands can survive +6 degrees celsius global average. My IPCC-attached friends negate the latter.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Can you fill us in on whether
1) This is something you have occassional random thoughts about
or
2) You have seen several videos, read atleast 6 books and attended atleast 2 lectures on the subject
or
3) You have made a serious study of the subject and familiarized yourself with the key measuring components of the field and have examined carefully the data, you have also made a thorough study of the peer review literature, are familiar with the Australian study that shows most CC deniers are quacks, familiar with climate deniers leading objective scientist recent reversal saying that "humans are almost entirely the cause", and that his latest study (funded by the surprised Koch brothers) basically confirmed all of the other peer reviewed material on the subject with this comprehensive data set as showed in this graph showing all of the major studies basically agree on the same data:
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)The earth is a billion years old. This graph shows 200 years. LOL
grantcart
(53,061 posts)1) Since my reply was questioning your ability and commitment to seriously study data and scientific theory based on your methodology I was signaling that I have zero interest in discussing the substance of the matter with you, because obviously I don't have any respect for your methodology. So I was questioning your overall personal commitment to serious thought.
2) The fact that you put the subject matter of the scientific proof of something as part of your 'belief' system is actually very humorous. It shows not only that you don't know science but also that your epistemology for your metaphysical system is something akin to a junior high student reading their astrology chart to find out how they are going to do on their math test. So I was questioning your overall ability to follow intellectual processes.
3) I am not a scientist but I do understand the scientific method and the process of peer review. In climate change those that were opposing the interpretation of the data and giving the climate change deniers the appearance of scholarly support have now reexamined their methodologies and are now siding with the rest of the climate change community. So I gave you some hints in the links to tip you that the whole climate denier world has just had rather major setbacks and I was questioning whether or not you even bothered to follow it at the 'Reader's Digest' level.
4) That you would put so much commitment into something that you have spent so little effort grasping is reminiscent of the many people who I have met who really really really believe that the New Testament makes a very strong case on the Virgin Birth of Jesus. They can really believe whatever they want but having studied it at the peer review level I know that the case is almost not existent and there is little scholarly doubt on the subject. So your OP shows that you not only don't know much about the science of the subject that you write about but that you also are completely careless in the things that you profess to believe in, and I was questioning your whole approach to metaphysics.
5) Your reply shows that you didn't get any of the rather harsh criticisms that were implied in the reply revealing yet another level of your sciolism but then you take it two steps further. First the "more redundancy" is an apparent reference to something but it isn't a reference to anything in our discussion. Apparently you either assume that everyone has read everything you have written on the subject or you are talking to yourself.
6) Finally your remarks about the chart. Did you really think it clever? Are you really that obtuse? To begin with the chart shows that there is harmony between the data used by the various schools and how that even those that used to argue about the data no longer do so, only those that don't know how the data is gathered.
And here is the ultimate metric of how worthless your opinion is on scientifically known facts. You glibly laugh at peer review data stating that the earth is "a billion years old". Are you now favoring us with another of your beliefs? Your belief that the world is one billion years old is as nonsensical (in some ways more careless) than those that are suggesting that it is 7 days old. The earth's age is known to be 4.5 billion years old. It is not a randomly picked number and it is not rounded. Specifically it is The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). So while you may believe that it is one billion years old there is, very much like your belief in the ambiguity of climate change certainty, no peer review dissent on the subject.
And this was a fact that my daughter had to get right before they let her out of the 6th grade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Age
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)THAT's going to leave a mark.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Since you are unable to comprehend this graph I am the 6th grader? What a crock
from
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
grantcart
(53,061 posts)gotten out of my daughter's 6th grade class.
Still waiting for the evidence on your claim for a billion year old world.
Now as to the graph it completely makes my point.
Like the bible toting fundies that really don't understand the bible they quote you practice eisogesis and not exegesis. In other words you have an opinion and you go looking for a source that you think supports your theory in the same way that a true believer searches for a biblical quote that they think (but often in context does not) prove their point.
Just because there were past fluctuations in the Earth's climate is not an argument for or against the current changes in the climate. Your chart means nothing.
So who are you using for sources?
Clicked on the link.
Some pseudo scientific looking cite with an anonymous article. Do you have any grasp of what peer review scholarship even means?
So we go to the Board of Directors and I google the first name.
James L. Buchal
No science background at all.
But he runs SOS Forests.
Who does he cite for authority?
September 14th, 2005
I have a lot of generous people to thank for helping me hatch this weblog. However, none of them wish to be publicly revealed at this time, for fear the thing will backfire and cause them subsequent regret. I respect their feelings and wishes, for now.
He proudly states that he is a member of no group of any kind, scientific or professional.
and who does he like on climate control
The most rabid right wing idiot on the subject, Senator Inhofe. Are you begining to see how right wing your approach is?
http://www.sosforests.com/?p=454
You are quoting lame ass right wing sources that are propped up by industry dollars to spread propaganda to undermine actual scientific research.
A year ago they were all in love with Richard Muller, the last real scientist that had doubts about the methodology of the data.
Koch brothers gave them a million dollars to prove that the climate scientists were wrong.
They came back and said that they (Muller, Koch and the other climate deniers) were 100% wrong. The data confirms that the earth is warming and it is from human activity
Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
SETH BORENSTEIN 10/30/11 03:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.
Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.
What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.
One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
So all the people that you are citing were quoting their main scientist Muller a year ago and Muller now admits that the data is correct.
Now if your mind finds it difficult to understand the medium of climate change because there are different seasons or because there are different climate epochs then we will go to the 5th grade level.
The Acidification of the Ocean.
You see all of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere has this long range impact on climate. But since some days are going to be warmer and some days colder and some climate epochs were warmer and some colder then some people with underdeveloped intellects cannot grasp the complexity.
That is not the case with the CO2 that is being absorbed by the Oceans.
There are no ups and downs or any doubt about the data.
Every day our oceans are absorbing more CO2. They are getting more acidic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Lets draw a diagram
Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, rivers and lakes.[2][3] To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing the ocean's "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans,[5][6]
This increasing acidity is thought to have a range of direct undesirable consequences such as depressing metabolic rates in jumbo squid[7] and depressing the immune responses of blue mussels.[8] (These chemical reactions also happen in the atmosphere, and as about 20% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere,[3] also in the ground soils between absorbed CO2 and soil moisture. Thus anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere can increase the acidity of land, sea and air.)
So our discussion about climate change data always ends in the same place. If people are too dimwitted to understand the data on climate change and to stubborn not to trust clearly stated peer review concensus then there is only one thing to do. Like the horse that is too stupid to drink you take them to the water. Like the horse who you can't force to actually drink there is nothing I can do to actually make you think. Obviously you are too defensive and emotionally committed to consider facts that you may not have had before (by the way you are a true beliver not an 'agnostic'. Perhaps agnostic sounds better to your ear, like a billion old earth does.
So while the foresters and the oil guys have spent millions to muddy the discussion on climate and confuse the simple minded they haven't even bothered on the parallel question of what is happening to the ocean.
It is clear.
It is unambiguous.
It is documented.
There is no contrary opinions.
You are wrong. You are free to use your right wing sources and 'believe' all you want. But if you bring them around here you will be widely and completely embarrassed.
Only the rules of civility by the DU community prevent me from actually telling you what I really think about what you are doing here.
Going back to work leaving you to continue to find self gratifying emotional comfort in the bubble you inhabit. We all have to make decisions on time allocation at some point and your value as an interlocutor doesn't meet evn the lowest bar, it is clear that there is no facts, arguments or sources that would have any impact on your point of view.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Note to self:
Don't piss off grantcart.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)on billion. Give me link so I can verify.
and what about this
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
grantcart
(53,061 posts)did you not read my reply?
1) It isn't relevant. Even if there were fluctuations in the past it isn't an argument for or against current fluctuations.
2) The whole scientific skepticism on climate change ended 12 months ago when the septics that all of the people you were linking to had their scientists change sides in a famous Koch supported study. All of the climate scientists are now in agreement with the data.
3) Your source is not a scientist, but a forester. He quotes people like Inhofe. You have gone to the most extreme RW sources. Your sources are so right wing that even Romney doesn't accept them.
4) Even if you put aside all of the climate change data and arguments it still can be proven by the acidification of the Oceans which actually no one disputes.
You are epistemological working at the level of an adolescent. Instead of working from the facts and drawing the appropriate conclusions you (exegetical reasoning "reading out of"
you start with a conclusion and go surfing to find something that you think proves your point (eisegetical reasoning "reading into" .
What is so curious about your approach is that you are so emotionally invested in a point of view that has been completely and totally refuted by peer review research. It is exactly like the religious fundamentals who start with a religious position i.e. the Virgin Birth and then search for whatever source that they think supports it.
You didn't leave off an s, you are completely clueless to basic scientific discoveries and facts. It is a form of aggressive anti intellectualism that is fairly unique to the US where someone thinks that they are being clever by not agreeing with the science of the subject they are trying to show that they are being objective, thoughtful and philosophically logical.
You are none of these things. Of all of the people on this thread you are the least agnostic you are the most subjective picking and choosing facts and graphs that you think are convincing (but in fact are not relevant). You are not the least bit thoughtful or philosophic about it because the most important ingredient of a philosophical point of view is not what you think but how (the epistemological method) of what you think. Here you are an intellectual adolescent and the fact that you could not process my reply but simply re posted it again without confronting the reality of it serves as a proof in itself.
Its not that your science is so bad its that your entire metaphysical architecture is infantile and unformed.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)It is possible to know, and in fact, we do know, that climate change is real, happening now, and anthropocentric.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)I stated 'we' know, as in the scientific community. What is this impugning of me personally? Your agnosticism is bullshit.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Edited to add this
from
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)Just ask your friendly green "trend line"!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It is impossible to recreate that ice core currently.
The relative location of that core has experienced substantial melting:
Next.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)You are clearly 100% correct but good luck getting anywhere. He would argue the theory of relativity with Einstein and think he is winning
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's a really sneaky ass graphic because it ends 95 years before it was drilled, back in the early 90s. And we're way way above the Medieval Warm period by all accounts. The fact that you can't go and drill a GISP3 in the same area as GISP2 is a very disconcerting tidbit of information. It's just completely misleading and has nothing to do with the last 120+ years of warming since its last data point.
The fact that the OP uses that talking point makes me suspect his "agnosticism." It's more likely they are a denier.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)This is the graph
from http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/09/10/global-warming-will-extreme-summers-become-the-norm/
you base your hypothesis on this graph and you and others refuse to look at the graph below because it ends 95 years before. So what? Your graph only show 220 years. This next graph shows the earth has clearly been much warmer and colder in the past but your emotions clearly have control over your intellect.
from http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
It is you and others who refuse to acknowledge this that are the deniers. This graph is from a scientist. It is clear with you and those others science only counts if it coincides with your agenda. Otherwise those scientists are considered quacks. Yep that's great science!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)This is what your image leaves out, because it leaves out 124 years of warming:
It's highly misleading and is regularly used by climate change deniers. You can't tell me you're "agnostic" and still use bullshit denier talking points.
The latest data we have actually shows that the Midieval Warming Period was not that warm after all compared to today:
BTW, 1880 to 2012 is 132 years, not 220.
You are so full of shit that is it is mind boggling how you continue peddling it even after being refuted by the science.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
12,000 years. We are far warmer than the HCO. Than Medieval Warming, than Roman Warming, and well on our way to dominating the Minoan warming.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Has the earth not been much hotter many times in the past? Yes or No? We are a long way from rising above the Minoan warming. This graph you show is crap. This graph below is actual ice core samples.
from http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Full stop. It doesn't include it. We haven't been this warm since the start of human civilization.
Note: The HCO was a localized effect, not global, proxies that take into account the southern hemisphere refute that.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)Please explain to us why you are ignoring it? I know you saw it. You are a fraud and this little charade is getting old!
Here it is again you weasel. Now refute this link or go away! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)My guess is he will bring up how the Earth was warmer than it is now during the Jurassic period even though I showed him why this occurred in a post above due to the rise of the Himalayan Mountains and the absorption of CO2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1876800
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1882655
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880483
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1882645
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1882563
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880230
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1878704
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880198
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1878743
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1882576
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880283
I'd alert and show the jury this disruptive behavior but they let him get away with it before, so why try again.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)
Iterate
(3,021 posts)One glance at that "curve fit" on the data and I knew it was bogus, without even breaking out the stat tools. Just drag it over to google images and see that it's been repeated endlessly on denier sites.
So where did it come from? I started looking for the original core data (R.B. Alley, JQSR, 19:213-226), but the links to the original were broken. Then I noticed that that chart wasn't in the original, it was produced by "David Lappi".
Who's he?
Alaska geologist and President of Lapp Resources, Inc.
And Lapp Resources?
Lapp Resources Inc in Wasilla, AK
search.mtadirectory.com › Wasilla, AK
MTADirectory.com >> Wasilla, AK >> Oil & Gas Exploration & Development >> Lapp Resources Inc. Lapp Resources Inc. 10600 Prospect Dr Anchorage AK ...
(Updated May 17, 2006)
LAPP Resources, Inc. is an Alaska-owned independent energy exploration and production company based in Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
Resume:
http://home.gci.net/~lapres/res.htm
I have more than 30 years experience in a variety of international exploration environments. Since 1984 I have concentrated on new ventures, developing and executing exploration programs for six different joint ventures in Australia as an independent operator.
I have exploration experience in geology, geophysics, remote sensing, and drilling, and petroleum development experience gained from the Houston Coalbed Gas Project, Prudhoe and Kuparuk Oilfields on the North Slope of Alaska, the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, small oilfields in the Midwest USA, and the Lloyd Oilfield and Woodada Gasfield in Australia.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (most recent first):
Alaska Earth Resources, Inc. (Anchorage, Alaska)
Alaska Earth Resources (AERI) is owned in equal shares by David Lappi, Robert Retherford, and Bill Ellis. We formed the company in late 2003 to take ownership positions in mineral exploration properties, and then joint venture those properties with other mineral exploration companies. Since we formed the company, we have staked approximately 1,500 mining claims of 160 acres each, and joint ventured many of them with other companies. Active exploration programs are taking place on several of these claim blocks. We have also joint ventured more than 250,000 acres of native-owned land with other mineral exploration companies and we expect the ongoing exploration programs to yield promising results over the next few years. I remain the president of AERI.
Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc. (Anchorage, Alaska)
Alaska Earth Sciences (AES) is a mineral exploration consulting company owned by Robert Retherford, and Bill Ellis (and previously David Lappi). I joined the company as a partner in late 2003 to pursue mineral exploration opportunities in an era of rising metal prices. I left in early 2006 to pursue other opportunities in the energy field.
LAPP Resources Inc. (Anchorage, Alaska)
Since 1991 I have guided this company to develop new energy playsin Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin and other areas. A GIS database for topographic, land use, land ownership, geological and geophysical data is in use for mapping and resource definition purposes. I remain president of the company.
....
Not a climate scientist by any means. But he did have some serious business...oh fuck, this guy has some serious business dealings in Alaska from 2003 to 2010, esp. on the North Slope. Some of it is directly in development, and some in fronting "studies" for bigger players.
WACO : Gas Exploration Proposal browse
waco-ak.org/index.php/Gov/GasExploration
Bald Eagle Energy, Inc (BEEI.OB) Gets Encouragement From LAPP Resources
Thursday, February 26th, 2009
http://blog.qualitystocks.net/category/bald-eagle-energy-inc-beeiob/
Plenty more...
Plus, the source site for the Great Greenland Graph...
Our mission is to further advancements in knowledge and environmental stewardship across a spectrum of related environmental disciplines and professions. We are ready, willing, and able to teach good stewardship and caring for the land.
W.I.S.E. provides a free, on-line set of post-graduate courses in environmental studies, currently fifty Topics in eight Colloquia, each containing book and article reviews, original papers, and essays. In addition, we present three Commentary sub-sites, a news clipping sub-site, and a fire tracking sub-site. Reviews and original articles are archived in our Library.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Here's an old post where we refuted it: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x233629
Note the source is someone who claims to want to get the facts, etc. Informative stuff though, really informative.
Iterate
(3,021 posts)There are too many of his high-level business dealings during the time she was AOGCC Chair/Governor for there not to have been a connection.
I figured as well that it been debunked previously in E/E but didn't see it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)afraid to state what you really believe?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)than I wanted to invest in this. You either believe me or don't. Simply don't care. I know it's hard for you to wrap your brain around the fact a person could not be convinced of something. For you it's either hot or cold. I am lukewarm on the CC & GW. I neither believe or disbelieve. My jury is still out on that topic. I have made it clear that I am greatly opposed to pollutants. That however, mind boggling as it is for me, is not enough for you. Because of that, I am greatly suspect of your agenda. Taxation comes to mind. I feel tax breaks are in order not more taxes.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It feels just like Usenet, circa 1995:
Poor players
That strut and fret their hour upon the stage
And then are heard no more: it is a tale
Told by idiots, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
With deep apologies to the Bard of Avon.
rightsideout
(978 posts)Three reasons for the drop in CO2.
1) Believe it or not, market forces may play a part in reducing CO2 levels. The biggest reason CO2 levels have gone down in the US, to 1990 levels, is aging coal power plants have been taken offline and replaced with more efficient natural gas plants. Natural gas prices are now competitive with coal. Reduce coal burning plants worldwide and CO2 levels will go down significantly.
2) Another reason for the CO2 drop in the US is less demand for gasoline. Yes, more fuel efficient cars are helping to reduce CO2 levels and the demand for gasoline. Those hybrid and electric cars Fox news likes to make fun of are actually helping to reduce gas demand and CO2 emissions even if electric cars are charged from coal plants. 1/3 of Californian's who own Nissan Leafs charge their cars from solar arrays on their homes and more people who own electric and plug-in hybrid cars are going solar. Generally, gas cars today are more fuel efficient. And of course, when gas prices go higher people drive less. All this combined has caused less demand for gasoline in the US.
3) Another reason for the CO2 drop is that the winters in the US have been more moderate so home heating usage has gone down. That is ironic, warming climates causing less man made CO2.
So the technology already exists to reduce CO2 gasses (I won't call CO2 a pollutant, it's a gas). The US has been reducing CO2 and no one has acknowledged it. By far, the largest drop in CO2 in the US had been due to taking aging coal plants offline. That's pretty much the number one reason for the drop. We need to get other industrialized nations to follow our lead and explore cleaner sources of fuel for their power plants.
As far as Climate Change being "man made" we've been through this before with ozone layer depletion. I don't get how anyone can say man has no effect on this planet when one man made chlorofluorocarbon chlorine molecule has been proven to destroy 100,000 ozone layer molecules. We banned ozone depleting refrigerants and aerosols which improved the health of the ozone layer.
So why the sudden denial that man has no effect on the planet when we've been through this before? You can thank the carbon industry for its part by supporting politicians that fight for big oil and fight against advances for alternative energy. Then you have deniers like Fox News and the sheeple that listen to it.
The big difference between the ozone scare and the climate change scare are the corporations behind it. CFCs didn't have as big a cheering section or as much political pull as the carbon fuel industry.
As far as the other US citizens or agnostics that continue to deny it, it's time to just ignore them and move on without them. They are becoming the minority. Let them keep yammering to themselves it's not happening.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
CO2 emissions have been rising consistently, although not as fast as other parts of the world. One very significant recent decline was due to that recession.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I said I agree with you that the CO2 levels have risen and will continue to rise due to Countries such as China etc. My mistake I should've said you.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Im a bit snappy today. Yeah, the rise in China has drastically increased global emissions, but nonetheless, the US has risen as well (though they have dropped their per capita emissions)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I didn't word that right. Always in too much of a hurry. Anyway I am against pollution which inevitably leads us both down the same path. I am just not convinced of CC & GW and it doesn't matter to me. I believe we need to eliminate pollution. So doesn't that put us on the same side? I however believe in TAX BREAKS such as they did with hybrids and are now offering for the Volt over taxation. I feel that rewards work much better than punishment,
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)First off, eliminating something "bad" vs something that is warming the world and will cause imminent famine and disaster might play out differently on the public.
Secondly:
I however believe in TAX BREAKS such as they did with hybrids and are now offering for the Volt over taxation.
We have an over production problem. Creating incentives to increase production will not solve this problem. While a EV may reduce emissions as it runs (provided it isn't powered by coal as most grids are by majority), it comes at a considerable carbon debt. To create all this "green" stuff like Windmills, PVs, EVs takes a huge consumption of energy (oil & coal) that cannot reach carbon neutrality for decades. Is the answer to an increasingly warming world really to immediately burn more oil? Is that really going to do it, considering everything we burn today will still be there in 50 years?
I do not think incentivizing further dirty production will work, nor do I think what will work is socially viable at this current time.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)the electricity has to be generated somehow. As I've stated in this thread hybrids got their start from tax breaks. They worked. However they should've continued. EV vs Hybrids. Not sure on that one. If we could find a better way to generate electricity then I would be all for it. Atomic Energy is not safe enough yet for me. As a few have stated this is a global problem. Technology alone will get us out of this mess only. The only way people will change is the product or service is cheaper either in price or length of service. Both is best. Sadly, we are a highly consumerist society.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Clearing you are not approaching this problem with a clean slate. You are asking: "how can we continue to infinitely grow exponentially and avoid extinction". My answer is: "you can't".
We should rather be asking: "how can we live in order to avoid extinction".
Perhaps, fundamentally, we need to change "how we live". That may or may not include increasing technological complexity and production.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)only going one way unfortunately. I made it clear "We must work alongside nature not against it." and in harmony with nature.
rightsideout
(978 posts)
rightsideout
(978 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The aggregate sum of all emissions in the US has increased ~20% since the early 90s. 
Much of the US driven growth in emissions is also hidden by outsourcing. Regional numbers are meaning less and less anymore.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The reality is that GHG emissions are up. The bad thing is that the EPA requires people to self-report and all the new natural gas stations are exempted from burn off or leakage.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)
Tobin S.
(10,420 posts) yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)always has uncertainty.
I like this quote of his better. It is closer to my view of the scientific method.
"I simply go with what works. And what works is the healthy skepticism embodied in the scientific method." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
And my own quote regarding science.
Science is like the speed of light in that one can never achieve the speed of light, but can only approach it. With science, you can never achieve absolute proof but you can keep getting closer to it.
There is always room for healthy skepticism in science.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)I do agree with both quotes. :wave:
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)it is evidence driven.
And the conclusions from scientific research should be, and need to be continuously challenged.
That is the beauty of the scientific method and science in general.
Absolute truths are not created by the scientific method, although me may get close.
The more an idea is challenged and supported, the closer we get.
Embrace skeptics, welcome the scientific arguments; in science it can only get us closer to the truth.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least, to date, I don't know how to argue it with right wingers/deniers. Except that they are using mostly their emotional desire that it is not true and therefore cannot defend their position either.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I don't think you understand. The OP is making the same argument as the "right wingers/deniers."
OP: "I feel the whole idea is a scam to tax you and I."
Pretty sure you can't use that argument.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)The RW/Deniers want the E.P.A. abolished. I am strictly opposed to that and have made that abundantly clear. I WANT to see CO2 levels dropped. I want cleaner, air, water and natural foods. Because I am not convinced of CC & GW you're unable to grasp that it is possible for someone not to be convinced but is concerned with the pollution which inevitably is the source of the problem in the first place.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)In fact, the one I've heard is that it's a grand conspiracy to have one world government. Just insane.
But it is tough to argue about it, since I'm not science-minded. I tend to say OK most scientists say it is so and so I believe it. But I don't have the ability to defend it.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)I feel both far sides are using emotions and not intellect to guide their communications on this issue
This graph is a honest representation of the temp history of the world. Not a 200yr slice in time.
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Rather than raging paranoia about a minor temperature uptick, we ought to be concerned about long-term temperature declines. If burning fossil fuels can warm the planet, then good. Fossil fuel use also enriches humanity and enhances our survival and comfort.
Warmer Is Better — Fight the Ice
Your entire argument is confusing obfuscation. You're ranting about the damaging effects of pollution and posting articles cheering on more pollution.
You're a climate change denier. Simply admit it instead of trying to make bogus claims.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and that along with you illogical rantings makes it clear that you are way the heck out there. The graph does not cheer on more pollution. Damn are you alright?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)you clearly side with the cultists. Can you refute this graph
from http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)We are far warmer than HCO already. Fact.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Any idiot who believes that is well...an idiot.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And siding with the tea baggers.
Nederland
(9,979 posts)I believe what you see below is more accurate. See post #462 for an explanation.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You can read this paper from 2012 here.
It is interesting that proxies are considered good analogs when they are really all over the place. I'm not saying that they're wrong, just that there's a lot of noise that, say, the instrumental record weeds out quite well.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)scientific evidence that the earth has been much warmer before.
from http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The orbital and solar environment of the Earth during the Roman and Minoan warm periods was the prime reason for those. As for the Medieval Warm Period the signal caused by that is worldwide but it seems that the warming was pretty much confined to Europe. You might like to find out why the graph you display so proudly missed one, by the way, the Dark Age Warming.
You don't actually look at any other sites than Watts and his sycophants, do you? And I bet you hang on every word from Demented Lord Monckton. The actual fact that of peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper discovers the same warming and sees the same results from Anthropogenic Global Warning is neither here nor there. You and the other purblind denialists will parrot the idea that there is a "conspiracy" to "sell" AGW; ignoring the small problem that the very scientists who are telling you the lies you believe make their money from the fossil carbon industries and entrenched interests like the Kochs.
Oh, yes, that little graph of yours is not a GLOBAL proxy temperature record it is a record confined to Greenland; so, of course, it shows massive variation plus the minor problems that:
1) signals in Central Greenland tend to lag global trends by 50 or more years and
2) the mass of ice damps any global warming observed whilst amplifying any cooling trends
Now, go away and actually learn something.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)with all these links. I am taking my time getting through this thread.
Permanut
(8,358 posts)if it exists, that is, is to cut taxes on the wealthy. Why can't you people see something so obvious?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If burning fossil fuels can warm the planet, then good."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880513
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880483
See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880500
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
billh58
(6,655 posts)ventured outside the protective bubble of the Gungeon without adequate protection -- in this case concealed knowledge.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts) datasuspect
(26,591 posts)are defiantly proud of their own stupidity.
Brutally proud.
catfish57
(14 posts)There is proof that it was warmer during Viking times than now. No SUV's then. Still no need to purposely pollute the atmosphere though.
Xipe Totec
(44,554 posts)H2O Man
(79,007 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You are in the wrong place with that.
