Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[qubit]

It's better phrased as "Climate change"

Washington state seems to be getting the warming bit of it though. It was 100F here the other day, and 90F today. That's sick and wrong on a level that should only be reserved for Californians.

Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.

Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?

 

[R-T-B]

Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.

Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?

I'll agree with that. "Who knows?" is about as far as I take the "it'll start a new ice age" portion of the argument.

 

[Peter1986C]

You can't because the long history of Monsanto plus all the data that proves they harm the environment and its inhabitants. The fact that nature is better off without humans farking with it is a good argument plus the horrible things Monsanto has developed and been a part off and has willingly ignored the health of millions for their chemical profiteering. You would make a good lobbyist or politician.

Why did Congress do this? Why would Monsanto need protection?
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

http://earthjustice.org/features/ourwork/timeline-monsanto-s-chemical-romance#

Go find some good stuff about Monsanto, I doubt you can.

Monsanto, killing softly since the 1900s.

Monsanto /= GMO
Plus cross-breeding etc. should have the same effects since genetically the end results are more or less the same.

 

[magibeg]

Oh I know we agree on several things. It's just that one little issue that we're gonna have to say that old saying..."We'll just have to agree to agree that I'm right." XD Or something like that.

It's ok, you'll learn I'm right one day over a beer

 

[Caring1]

Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.

Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?

That's the whole point of the climate change argument, it isn't about whether the world is cooling or heating, it's about extremes of weather.
England's climate may become more tropical with severe tropical storms, possibly cyclones as well as the benefit of generally warmer climes.
I used to laugh when England reported a heat wave with highs around 25c, when that is a warm winters day where I live.
Now England is passing 30c more often.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Its 07.20 and it is 26 degrees in my house in Wales, the last time i can remember temps like this was 1976.

I have noticed this warm weather is on a 39 year cycle.............. does that make me a scientist ?

I am not used to it and i dont like it..........does that make me a politician ?

 

[broken pixel]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

[SK-1]

Well I didn't get any damn money! lol. But in all seriousness...What a hack piece of journalism.

 

[haswrong]

the human type global warming began long time ago before industrial society, when human started forming terrain (deforestation) and redirecting rivers to places where it wouldnt support natural ecosystem, but just the actual human needs or underground water to create aqueducts. as humans grew in numbers, the agriculture and food production became the pillar of it, and the methane production was an interesting side effect today, when human population is at the peak of growth, unable to agree on decreasing the number of members in a peacefull manner and enjoying doing so in hostile manner, in society where every individual is pushed to perform some kind of work to earn the needed drug dosage it is dependent upon with life (money), thus transform energy, and effectively amplifying any heat production not only with body, but with any contraption it puts to use, theres no turning back under the invisible dome of methan


.:.:.:. pray to the methane god of doom!

 

[dorsetknob]

.:.:.:. pray to the methane god of doom!

Behold the Human worshipers of the god Methane

 

[SK-1]

Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet.


The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...un-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

 

[dorsetknob]

Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep'

Ha ha ha and pigs will fly ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.

Edit
Oh it was reported in the Daily mail and their source was the Onion supported by the huffinton post and the National Inquirer

so it must be true Snigger

 

[Caring1]

Gotta love the daily mail, it's always good for a laugh.

 

[silkstone]

Reading back through the thread and reading how the arguments evolve is extremely amusing.

Stage 1: Deny that CO2 changes drive climate change
-> CO2 levels don't affect the planet in anyway. Volcanoes and cows are much more damaging!
Stage 2: Deny that it's a man-made problem
-> What, scientists say CO2 does affect the climate? Well, there's no evidence man is the cause.
Stage 3: Deny the evidence
-> There is evidence? Well then, the scientists don't agree on the evidence.
Stage 4: Attack the character
-> Wait ... They do agree? Then those scientists are liberal hacks/just after the money

Edit - Forgot a stage

 

[ShiBDiB]

Never knew one thread with so much FUD would last so long...

 

[silkstone]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here already, but "Merchants of Doubt" is a must watch if you want to understand the "politics" behind the science.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is true. Though I would still argue about where the influences lie. The fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than green energy, and I would argue based on policy that the government itself isn't bias towards global warming being real so much as it's trying to react to it now. I'm just not understanding what the government incentive would be if global warming existed that wouldn't upset the also held belief that the same governments are also in the pocket of big oil.

But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning. So you got commerce on one side that prefers the status quo because it is the most economical and you have scientists on the other side with a green activist slant on the other that demand ending the status quo (very uneconomical). Polar opposite point of views which leads to politicization. It the role of government to decide what to do. One of the most extreme proposal out there is a carbon tax. USA, so far, hasn't done that but it has placed extreme requirements on not only vehicle emissions but also fuel economy requirements. Yes, yes, the left will argue it's not enough but the right will also argue doing more would destroy the economy and make better solutions economically unattainable. Believe it or not, this is government at work: compromising.

Freeman Dyson (physicist) wrote an article about the incremental approach above being the only sensible solution to the "problem" regardless if the "problem" actually exists. He explicitly names bioengineering trees to better process CO2 may be the answer, and he's absolutely right. Most people don't realize that we are the cusp of a genetic age where we build machines to sequence and produce DNA chains as desired. Where we literally "grow" solutions to problems using cells instead of iron. So even if there is a "problem" (Dyson argues it is bad computer models), we're coming up with solutions faster than the "problem" grows. The pessimism is completely unwarranted--radical solutions (e.g. carbon tax) even less so.

 

[R-T-B]

But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning.

I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left. So it's a little deeper rooted than that... of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.

 

[silkstone]

But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning.

American's really love to 'label' people. It's a very tribal and polar way of thinking that I have never really understood. Whether they are 'liberal learned' or not makes no difference to the science. A catholic scientist came up with the first birth control pill. Needless to say, the science he carried out was independent of his political/theological beliefs.

Freeman Dyson (physicist) wrote an article about the incremental approach above being the only sensible solution to the "problem" regardless if the "problem" actually exists. He explicitly names bioengineering trees to better process CO2 may be the answer, and he's absolutely right. Most people don't realize that we are the cusp of a genetic age where we build machines to sequence and produce DNA chains as desired. Where we literally "grow" solutions to problems using cells instead of iron. So even if there is a "problem" (Dyson argues it is bad computer models), we're coming up with solutions faster than the "problem" grows. The pessimism is completely unwarranted--radical solutions (e.g. carbon tax) even less so.

Yet, if people don't make a noise about it, from where does the impetus to innovate these solutions come?

 

[rtwjunkie]

I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left. So it's a little deeper rooted than that... of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.

Actually, to go further, nearly all college educators and administrators are liberal/left leaning. This goes to what Silkstone up above seems to find blasphemous, that most scientific research that is university funded is funded to support liberal political views, because that is where the grant money comes from. I'm not bashing it, just stating a fact. So most research of this sort will support the ideals/goals of the money holders. It's just the way it is.

It's not a love of labeling anyone. It just is what it is. People that decry labels are usually that way because they are cognizant of what label they fall under. Everyone has a belief in multitudes of subjects. The only way to not "label" someone is if they had no beliefs, or all peoples shared the same belief.

 

[silkstone]

Actually, to go further, nearly all college educators and administrators are liberal/left leaning. This goes to what Silkstone up above seems to find blasphemous, that most scientific research that is university funded is funded to support liberal political views, because that is where the grant money comes from. I'm not bashing it, just stating a fact. So most research of this sort will support the ideals/goals of the money holders. It's just the way it is.

It's not a love of labeling anyone. It just is what it is. People that decry labels are usually that what because they are cognizant of what label they fall under. Everyone has a belief in multitudes of subjects. The only way to not "label" someone is if they had no beliefs, or all peoples shared the same belief.

Yet it is possible to hold different beliefs from both the left and right side of the political camp. What does that make a person?

I'll bite anyway. Alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal or maybe they are just liberal because their data doesn't support what some people are spouting?

I'm reading a lot of FUD in these arguments with no evidence to back up any of the claims.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Yet it is possible to hold different beliefs from both the left and right side of the political camp. What does that make a person?

I'll bite anyways, alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal?

That is what is described in most countries as a moderate.

 

[silkstone]

That is what is described in most countries as a moderate.

Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?

 

[rtwjunkie]

Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?

No one said it invalidates an argument if someone's political belief is different. There is the very real situation though, and I can only speak about U.S. universities, that the studies done by scientists who receive grants from those universities, get those grants by aligning the study with the political viewpoint already held by the academics and administrators who hold sway over the school and its funds. Therefore, results are indeed corrupted and suspect.

Theoretically, in the perfect world you seem to espouse, but which exists nowhere, the politics would not matter to the science. Indeed, all rational people wish it were so, I can imagine. I however, am a realist, and see things for what they are, and understand science will never be free of political beliefs and machinations.

 

[silkstone]

No one said it invalidates an argument if someone's political belief is different. There is the very real situation though, and I can only speak about U.S. universities, that the studies done by scientists who receive grants from those universities, get those grants by aligning the study with the political viewpoint already held by the academics and administrators who hold sway over the school and its funds. Therefore, results are indeed corrupted and suspect.

Theoretically, in the perfect world you seem to espouse, but which exists nowhere, the politics would not matter to the science. Indeed, all rational people wish it were so, I can imagine. I however, am a realist, and see things for what they are, and understand science will never be free of political beliefs and machinations.

i'm not saying they are not, but why do you believe that universities are liberally aligned?
Even if I were to agree that politics influences what gets researched, I can see how anyone can believe that it holds such an influence on the conclusions reached by studies.