global warming for real...

[mandugi23]

today as i was going to school snow started to fall and temperature dropped to like 25F. i dont remember being this cold for a while especially early december, and i certainly dont remember snowing in seattle during this time of year(rains usually...).

well, i guess all those talk about global warming is for real since every year it seems like its getting hotter in the summer and colder in winter... and at this rate i'll have to buy me one of those thick coat that looks like pimp clothes just to stay warm...

i wonder what its like in other parts of US or world, especially those areas around russia and alaska... man! i feel bad for them...

[blue60007]

Yeah...if you ask me, global warming is a bunch of malarkey. Just a natural cycle. I think the weather over the next 100 years will be interesting. More powerful hurricanes, wild severe weather, and wild winters - again, this is just a natural cycle that the Earth goes through, but we really don't have enough proof to prove this either way.

[catacon]

Read the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While it is fiction, kind of shows you that global warming is crap.

[EzyStvy]

"The results are in. Global warming is real. It's more than an environmental issue; it's about our national security, it's about our public health. It's an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet - the most urgent threat facing humanity today. That's why it's going to take more than policy debates and think tanks and lip service from governments. It's going to take action - by you, by all of us working together."

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp

[Hi Ho]

While I do think global warming exists I don't think it's an urgent threat. There are weather cycles but there is also evidence that shows all of the CO2 we pump into the air affects it.

I live in Washington as well and I got snow. I don't think this snow is a result of global warming. It doesn't usually come this early but I wouldn't blame it on global warming.

The news said we're in a neutral weather year, the same thing as in 1996 when we had that huge ice storm.

[rspassey]

I have to say I disagree and that I think Global Warming is a very serious issue - there are studies proving that humans have disrupted the normalities of the atmosphere with increased CO2 levels. These increases have been studied and the changes made in the last 100 years in CO2 levels is extrememly high compared to that of normal CO2 level change over between 1800-1900. Thus, causing temperatures to rise - I am sorry I don't have the quote for this, but I read it just a few days ago in a popular science magazine, and I know that stats can be manipulated, but I think Global Warming is pretty serious. Just my two cents.

[weremonkey]

Originally Posted by catacon Read the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While it is fiction, kind of shows you that global warming is crap.

I just finished that one, and if you read the appendices, a lot of what is talked about in there actually seems to be true; there has never been concrete evidence of global warming.

[HAL9000]

Around here, we've always heard about the "12 year cycle" (approximate of course) where you have 12 years of "mega" snow, 12 years of not so much snow, but bitterly cold, then 12 years of medium amount of snow and milder temperatures. Well, I am 37, I remember as a kid, snow piled up against the fence high enough to bury it (7 feet), in my teens, it was REALLY cold for long periods of time... tires on the car would go square and power steering as stiff as manual steering.... cycle now says that we should be heading towards mega snow... well, past couple of years have been more snow... I wouldn't say mega yet... but definitely more and while we get cold spells, they don't last long, so temps are definitely milder.... so I really don't know if I buy into the global warming thing or not.... seems to me that the world is all about money and anything you do that is "enviromental" will cost you plenty of it.

[blue60007]

Kinda the same here...We ususally have a big time snow every 20 - 25 years. We just had a "mega" storm last year, and the last was in '78 - big time blizzard, worst blizzard on record in the state.

I should do some research into our climatical history and see if there's a pattern.

On the same note, I heard that we are going into a "busy cycle" with hurricanes for like 150 years. They were saying 150 years ago there were a lot of hurricanes, then it slowed down...then it's starting to pick up, and they think we are going into a busy hurricane cycle. Something like that.

[catacon]

They can't predict weather correctly five days into the future, let a lone 150 years. I know that pollution hurts the environment and that we are destroying natural habitats, but I really can't buy into global warming. The reason I say to read State of Fear is that he gives a lot of facts about how much water levels have increased and how temperatures have increased, and the change is miniscule. There just isn't proof to show that it is happening on a large scale.

[SARGE]

If one looks at the actual data presented by facts there is obviously a "cycle" of these things in at least recorded history, long before man used aerosol deodorants, etc. Many have blamed mankind for all the recent hurricanes due to our contribution to the so-called "global warming". I always read but never save data which comes back to bite me on the uh-huh but read where these hurricane fits occur every so often in years and the cycle looked regular rather than getting more frequent due to our meanness to the planet. Also read data where the sun itself throws fits at regular intervals and they descend upon us and cause changes in the climate for a spell. One must always be wary and accept that there are billions of us walking this man's earth and a certain faction will always blame mankind for destroying what we walk upon. Nature is much bigger than any of us and unless we unleash many nukes into the atmosphere, we really don't do much to destroy what some call "Mother Earth", a term I always cringe at.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by catacon The reason I say to read State of Fear is that he gives a lot of facts about how much water levels have increased and how temperatures have increased, and the change is miniscule. There just isn't proof to show that it is happening on a large scale.

Right! So the weather has gotten a wee bit warmer in the past 50 years? The Earth's been here 5 billion years, and has been much warmer and colder at different times.

We have only been polluting and what not for a blink of an eye or two for the Earth, not enough time to make a significant difference in the long run.

Keep in mind that I don't think we should just ignore pollution and what we're doing to the envirnoment, etc - you know, we do need to work on cleaner energy and what not, but we don't need to get all exicted that the world is coming to an end or anything like that.

[thefultonhow]

The question really isn't whether the weather has been getting warmer -- even the scientists that most actively support the theory of global warming agree that we are in the midst of a natural warming cycle. The question is actually whether or not human activity has accelerated the cycle, and most scientists think it has.

I agree that blaming the hurricanes on recent activity is stupid, though. Even if human activity were the reason for them, it's not like we all of a sudden started burning fossil fuels and made the temperature spike. Global warming is a gradual increase, and you have to blame human activity over the past 200 years, not over the past five, for any kind of acceleration of the cycle.

[Jaggannath]

I hate extremists... except for that dude ejected from Greenpeace who goes around sinking Japanese whalers who are illegally doing what they do

[sgtspector]

I wonder if the dinosaurs had this conversation 65 million years ago. We just need to find out what they did and not do that. Oh wait, earth got hit by a giant meteor and the "you know what" hit the oscillating ventilator. Oh well.

[CaptTuna]

A few extra hurricanes each year for the next 5 years should cool us nicely.

[juppy]

I figure it all just depends on which side you want to listen to really. On one hand you have the global warming people saying we're going to melt the glaciers and burn up. Then on the other hand you've got the scientists that say the Earth goes through an ice age roughly every 65,000 years (I think that's the number)....anyway, we're at that number of years right now. So one side says we're gonna burn and the other says we're gonna freeze to death. Personally, I'm going for the middle ground and saying they're both wrong and we're gonna get obliterated by another asteroid. Hey, why not? It worked for the dinosaurs.

[Force Flow]

Either way, all that junk we're putting into the air can't be healthy.

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by Force Flow Either way, all that junk we're putting into the air can't be healthy.

Too true.

[sdkfz]

I subscribe to the natural cycle theory but being modded by our activities. I do not like 'constant state' theories, too much dependenat on something else to make me beleive that the planet is 'constant'.

We beleive that CO2 allows heat to be retained, but we really have no concrete evidence from observation and repeatable experimentation- this is where science gets its facts from. The bad part is we are talking about the thin skin of the planet where we live and I am certain I do not want to see an experiment go really wrong.

[Punked Out Comp]

One astroid, no matter how big it is, will not completely wipe out mankind.


Earth is round, and nothing could hit the entire surface all at once. No matter how big the astroid is, a relatively VERY small surface will be hit. Like so:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I have a picture describing this, but I made it with MSpaint, and I cant convert it to .jpg and if I change it to jpg, and open it with IE, then its just a red x. How can I change it?
I have win2k.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Which makes me wonder, how could one astroid have wiped out dinosaurs millions of years ago, unless they were all concentrated in one small spot?

[David M]

The fact is, the Earth goes through periods of global warming and global cooling. The proof is in fossil records and in ice cores taken from the polar caps. The ice cores are used to measure the ratio of the two most common isotopes of carbon which vary in their ratios according to the Earths temperature. The Earth also goes through an ice age every 20,000 years. To assume that the Earths temperature should remain constant is simply false. To then assume that any changes in the Earths temperature are caused man is false as well.

The ice cores which cover tens of thousands of years show temperature fluctuations over tens, hundreds and thousands of years. The earths temperature is simply not constant over short periods of time, intermediate periods of time or long periods of time.

Temperature change has become a political tool to get people to alter their behavior. There is no proof whatsoever that man has influenced changes in the Earths temperature. It is theory.

Atmospheric scientists have not come to any definitive conclusions that man is causing the Earth to warm. They know that to make such a conclusion in a system which changes temperature whether man exists or not, would be junk science.

Don't get drawn in to believing it from the political and environmental activists. These people are not atmospheric scientists. A scientists reputation is based on accuracy, objectivity and following the scientific method. An activists reputation is based on their ability to alter other peoples behavior. If they can alter someones behavior by exaggeration, half-truths, omission of relevant fact or flat out lieing, then they have achieved their objective. A scientist could never get away with this.

It is a real shame that the media does not discenrn environmental activists from scientists when interviewing. Environmentalist groups love getting their faces in the cameras. Scientists tend to shy away from publicity. The media finds the environmentalists to be colorful and the scientists, boring. So who do you think tends to distribute their dogma to the public more frequently? Don't confuse activism with science. An activists goal is to get people to alter their behavior. In this case it is to get people to use less fossil fuel. I agree that fossil fuel is nasty stuff. But to tie the use of fossil fuel to "global warming" is simply lieing to people. Many people have fallen for this false theory based on what they have been fed by activists and not scientists.

There are pleanty of legitimate scientific journals which discuss what I just said. You will not find any activist's journal which even challenges the theory of gloal warming. Mainstream publications like Time just assume it is happening. Clearly there is no objectivity coming from the activists or the press.

I fear we are becoming a nation of sheep believing what those with an agenda want us to believe with an unobjective press enthusiasticaly spoon feeding us.

Think about it. Given the Earth's temperature fluctuates whether or not man exists, then how can any rational person conclude that man is changing the Earth's temperature?

Punked,
Scientists have found a massive crater north of the Yucatan peninsula which coincides with the sudden disappearance of dinosaurs. Also, a layer of isotopes was found dating back to the time that the dinosaurs disappeared. The isotopes found in this layer are those only found in asteroids. A large enough asteroid striking the Earth it is believed would cover the Earth in dust and gas for years thus stopping photosynthesis and therefore killing off most species. The Earths oxygen disappeared very fast when photosynthesis stopped. The dinosaurs suffocated. I do believe man could be eliminated from an asteroid strike. Look at the surface of the Moon if anyone thinks the Earth is immune from massive asteroids. The Earth has taken more asteroid hits than the Moon. The Earths gravitational pull is greater and the Earth has a greater surface area. All it will take is an asteroid large enough and man is gone for good.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by David M Atmospheric scientists have not come to any definitive conclusions that man is causing the Earth to warm. They know that to make such a conclusion in a system which changes temperature whether man exists or not, would be junk science.

That is not true at all. Real atmospheric scientists have come to a consensus, and it is not junk science:

"Researchers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have pondered the evidence and concluded that the earth is warming, that humans are probably the cause, and that the threat is real enough to warrant an immediate response. "There is no dispute that the temperature will rise. It will," says Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science. "The disagreement is how much."

See any activists in there?

The way I see it is this: even if we aren't 100% convinced that we are causing global warming, the risks are huge: the complete devastation of our civilization. To me, then, it seems to be pretty prudent that we do what we can to limit any possible influences on our climate. If we do something, and we are wrong about global warming, what have we lost? Some money? Big deal. If we do nothing, though, and human-influenced global warming is real, what will we lose? Everything. It's a no-brainer to me.

Punked Out Comp, a good-sized asteroid will kill off mankind not by crushing people, but due to the climate changes that such a huge strike would cause.

And that Michael Crichton book is completely unscientific. I would encourage people to go here and read a scientific rebuttal by real climate scientists. I really can't believe that the words of a novelist are believed more than actual scientists, but it's not surprising given the anti-intellectual culture we live in.

[RevCLB]

Recently read about feed supplement to reduce cattle flatulence in Wales. Can you imagine dinosaurs, big as a house & able to eat whole trees? Maybe they wiped themselves out by flatulence.

Also recently read that sunspots are in an unusual cycle & could be influencing global warming. How many thousands of years have we measured sunspots? I believe the earth goes through cycles & none of us will live long enough to measure these cycles.

[IntegraGSR]

I don't think we've done even close to irrepairable damage to the Earth yet, and while I hope we don't, from what I can tell, it can always fix what we screw up. It may or may not be real, it could be blown up so environmentalists have a pedastal to stand on when they speak, or it could truely be nearly no threat.

I myself, from personal experience, do not believe it's that bad, if it even exists. A winter is a winter, a summer is a summer, they are hot, they are cold.

Just because this year is a few degrees warmer or colder doesn't mean global warming is real. It just means today is warmer, or today is colder than average. There doesn't have to be a reason, and if there is a reason, it's probably because there's warm winds coming from the south, or cold winds blowing from the north. (if you're in the northern hemisphere anyway) Dur.

[David M]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo That is not true at all. Real atmospheric scientists have come to a consensus, and it is not junk science: See any activists in there? The way I see it is this: even if we aren't 100% convinced that we are causing global warming, the risks are huge: the complete devastation of our civilization. To me, then, it seems to be pretty prudent that we do what we can to limit any possible influences on our climate. If we do something, and we are wrong about global warming, what have we lost? Some money? Big deal. If we do nothing, though, and human-influenced global warming is real, what will we lose? Everything. It's a no-brainer to me. Punked Out Comp, a good-sized asteroid will kill off mankind not by crushing people, but due to the climate changes that such a huge strike would cause. And that Michael Crichton book is completely unscientific. I would encourage people to go here and read a scientific rebuttal by real climate scientists. I really can't believe that the words of a novelist are believed more than actual scientists, but it's not surprising given the anti-intellectual culture we live in.

Gonzo,
Your quote says that these people believe that humans are probably the cause. My whole assertion is that scientists do NOT know whether or not humans are the cause. If they did know humans are the cause then they would say "Humans ARE the cause" My main point is they they do not know with certainty. The bottom line is they are guessing.

The most accurate statement that can be drawn is that "Human activity MIGHT be causing the warming of the planet". All we hear from the press and activists is that "human activity IS causing global warming". These are two very different statements. One is a guess, and the other is an accurate statement.

All I want is for the press and the activists to stop lieing to people by telling them that it is indeed happening.

Michael Crichton is a novelist and not a scientist.

If the use of petroleum MIGHT be causing global warming then does it make sense to cut back? Not without proof. If someone told you that aliens MIGHT be scanning your brainwaves and if you wear an aluminum foil hat that it will stop the brain scans, then would you wear the hat because it MIGHT stop the brain scans?

If we were told to do things because of something we cannot prove or disprove then we would be doing some pretty crazy things. That is called superstition.

[doctorgonzo]

Well, when you come down to it, all science is "guessing." It's a guess that Quantum Mechanics works; another theory may be discovered that better explains the data that scientists see from their experiments. Same for every other theory out there. It is impossible to say with 100% certainty that any theory is correct because there are an infinite number of alternate theories in the world, and so it is impossible to test and nullify every other alternative theory.

But the most accurate statement is not that "human activity MIGHT" be causing the warming of the planet. "Might" is far, far weaker than "probably", and the general scientific consensus is that humans are probably the cause. There's a big difference between saying that I "might" be the best NBA basketball player out there (and who knows? I might be; I've never tried) and saying that I probably am. Probably means a preponderance of evidence. Might simply means that the possibility, no matter how improbable, exists.

I'm interested to find a story that says for absolute certain that global warming is caused by humans.

Science is not ideological and should not be politicized. Politics belongs in the policies that scientific findings may suggest, not in the fact themselves. It's one thing to argue that global warming does exist, but the potential benefits are not worth the costs involved, so we should not make any changes to our lifestyles. That's an intellectually honest policy, and it can certainly be the starting point for a real, honest debate. It's quite another thing to simply claim that scientists don't know what they are talking about because you don't believe that we should make any policy changes.

The quoted article, BTW, is from Business Week Online, which is probably not an activist publication in the manner that you are suggesting.

[David M]

Science is based on models that work and are repeatable. The reasons behind why the models work are not always obvious at first..if ever. You cannot draw conclusions from "probably, maybe or might"

My point remains that if we alter our behavior according to "might, maybe or probably" theories, then the human race will end up behaving in some very irrational ways. Concluding petroleum causes warming and modifying our behavior because of this "maybe" is a step in the wrong direction for rational humans to be taking.

I am not going to alter my behavior every time a fashionable "maybe" theory comes along in order to placate those who want me to alter my behavior.

Too many in this world want to alter others behavor for their own personal benefit and power.

Maybe I will go out and buy a Hummer this weekend?

Time to get back to work.

[Hi Ho]

One astroid, no matter how big it is, will not completely wipe out mankind. Earth is round, and nothing could hit the entire surface all at once. No matter how big the astroid is, a relatively VERY small surface will be hit. Like so:

It's not the impact that does it. It's the stuff thrown into the atmosphere that blocks out the sun for years, even decades.

If the use of petroleum MIGHT be causing global warming then does it make sense to cut back? Not without proof. If someone told you that aliens MIGHT be scanning your brainwaves and if you wear an aluminum foil hat that it will stop the brain scans, then would you wear the hat because it MIGHT stop the brain scans?

Is all the smoke we pump into the air good for us or the environment? I think not. There are many reasons to find alternative fuel sources ranging from the pollution to our dependance on foreign oil. It's not just about global warming.

I am anything but an environmental activist but I do think we need to be seriously researching alternative fuel. We WILL run out of oil some day.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by David M My point remains that if we alter our behavior according to "might, maybe or probably" theories, then the human race will end up behaving in some very irrational ways. Concluding petroleum causes warming and modifying our behavior because of this "maybe" is a step in the wrong direction for rational humans to be taking.

You changed "probably" again in your post, but this time you only changed it to "maybe" instead of "might".

I will have to disagree with you on this one. All public policy, and in fact all human actions, are based on "might, maybe, or probably" theories. If people only chose actions that were 100% certain to succeed, we would never do anything. When person A asks somebody out, they don't know with 100% certainty that they will say yes; it is "might, maybe, or probably". When politicians put forward a tax proposal or a crime proposal, there is no 100% certainty on what will happen; there is "might, maybe, or probably."

All rational human activity is taking actions with some good idea as to the probability of success. Can this lead to irrational behaviour? Sure: when people are completely incapable of estimating the probabilities involved. That's why there are a lot of people who are petrified of flying but drive all the time, which is an irrational behaviour; they simply don't realize that the probability of dying in a plane crash is far less than driving, and so they irrationally base their behaviours on this erroneous estimation of probability.

If you don't draw conclusions from "might, maybe, or probably", I would be very interested in knowing how you live your life.