Amusement in the NewsFollow

My back yard has zero dead polar bears. If polar bears were dying, my back yard should be hip deep in bear carcasses, I say!

It hasn't yet been proven to me that their constant drinking of non delicious real cane sugar! based Cola products isn't the real cause of their peril.

Which signs would that be? Snowstorms in March?

I get that it's "complex", but that works both ways. You're supporting a political agenda that is based on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise over the next century (or "within our lifetime"). Those of us on the other side aren't predicting anything. Your side is. You are saying that there's some high degree of certainty that the entire planet's average temperature will increase by X degrees over Y amount of time.


That's what's missing though. Want to guess how much the average temperature has gone up in the decade since Gore announced that this was a massive problem that had to be addressed "right now"? Zero. We're not talking about weather patterns, dry spells, freak snowstorms, etc. All of those could mean anything at all. We're talking about the one single thing that *must* happen if "Global Warming' is actually something we need to be terrifically concerned about. Yet, oddly, global temperatures have stayed steady for the last decade...

When someone is making predictions about temperatures based on a theoretical model, which is supposed to have massive effects during our lifetimes?

Sorry. That's pretty darn relevant.



Except the person I was responding to. Do you just not bother to read before posting?




It is not a 1 in a 1000 chance, or a 1 in a million chance Smash. The theory is just plain "wrong" as it is applied to the political agenda.


The reason not to do the things the political activists want is that they will be massively more harmful to the humans living on this planet than any possible climate changes which might occur would be.

Your acting on fear. Make people afraid and get them to do what you want. But what people are being told they need to do has little to do with preventing climate change and a whole lot to do with imposing greater government control over the populaces and economies of the world. So yeah. There are many reason not to do stupid things like cap and trade systems, for a gas that probably has nothing at all to do with global temperatures, but will have a whole lot to do with controlling and regulating every single industry on the planet.



Wrong. And Wrong. There is virtually zero chance that not imposing carbon cap and trade (for instance) will cause a global climate disaster. There is nearly a 100% chance that by doing so, it will strengthen specific types of political control on a whole range of industries. The ironic part is that most people can't see this simple fact. It's like the government saying that everyone must give up free speech because only by doing so can we prevent air pollution (or something equally ridiculous). Idiots like you will line up to insist that if there's even a small chance of disaster it costs us "nothing" to comply.

Um... It costs us freedom. That's worth a lot to me. I know it doesn't to you, but that's just you.



If there wasn't, no one would be opposed to what the government is proposing. You get that right? Lol...



Oh yes. Just a short term negative to a "special interest". Um... Would that be a political ideology you don't like? What a coincidence! When I said it had to do with politics, who knew you agreed with me?


The reality is that this is almost entirely about politics. It's about "winning" an ideological war by eliminating anyone who disagrees with you. In this case, by using the power of the government and trumped up fears of the population to continue to apply more and more political and economic pressure to those who disagree with you.



I believe that science should not be manipulated to serve purely political ends. You are correct. And since that is *exactly* what is happening, I'm justified in my opposition. Congratulations for noodling that one out.





A good rule of thumb is that if someone tells you that if you don't do something, some horrible bad thing will happen, that person is the one attempting to manipulate you. I'll continue to be a skeptic, thank you very much...

Wow, that'd be pretty horribly damning if it wasn't already predicted by about half the models damn near a decade ago. Most of the other half showed fairly insignificant change over that period. You'd almost think that this was largely expected years ago.

Yeah, ignorant or stupid you pick:p

While a predominance of credible scientists will agree that there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that human-kinds actions, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, has caused the over-all global climate patterns to change, and will continue to do so. It's hardly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the anticipated rise in global temperature is an outcome.

I've seen the co2 levels in the ambient air of my little state increase 2-fold over the last 15 years - and this is a rural state. We've changed our local little system. Does this prove global warming? - of course not. Is it evidence - yep. There is lots of evidence, however it would be preposterous for us to assume we had this planets current, past or future climate all figured out. We're not even close.

There are lots of good reasons to reduce our dependence on oil/coal/natural gas. Suspected modification of global climate patterns is only one of them. Heart disease, respiratory disease, numerous types of cancer, depletion of resources, irreparable damage to ecosystems, dependence on other nations, are some others.

Not since I converted it to run on solar energy and rainbows.

Technically rainbows are solar energy so you could run your lawnmower on rainbows. Not that it would stop Flea from questioning your sanity/sexuality.

Hey, one problem, Pluto isn't a planet. OK, that's a lie, there's far more than one problem.

What's funny is that you linked a article which touches briefly on why solar cycles are not the cause for global warming. They also mention a pattern* of solar energy absorbtion which runs counter to relatively recent warming trends, although they do not mention this. Global warming has slowed recently, according to a source earlier in this thread, you see. Woops!

*

I'm really not sure what you mean. The article I linked had scientists arguing for both sides, that recent global warming is caused almost exclusively by humans and that it is caused almost exclusively by cosmic forces. The article by no means concluded with one side or the other, and neither did I.

Your other quote illustrates the point I am making, it includes data from 1960-today. We have no perspective from which to judge long-term cosmic cycles. We have a partial glimpse of one tiny little period in history when we stopped believing the church and actually started investigating phenomena ourselves, and we assume very much from the small amount of evidence that we have collected in this short period of time (~500 years).

I do think human actions contribute significantly to global warming, I just don't think the scientific evidence or conclusions are as certain as people would like them to be, or believe they are.

For the third time in three posts, I don't have a "side." The typical global warming debate consists primarily of a bunch of confused sheep quoting what some "expert" said without any critical thinking.



The article listed quotes from scientists who advocated both positions, that the solar fluctuations were the main cause and that they were not. The author of the article did not conclude with one side or the other. However, even if it weren't the sun, that doesn't discount other factors such as cosmic waves or dust, or things we haven't discovered or even imagined yet.

You never addressed the point. Simply because the majority of scientists believe something doesn't make it true. We thought Newton and Einstein were absolutely correct until we started getting into quantum mechanics. The point is that the scientists do not have enough evidence to form a certain conclusion because we have been collecting evidence for about 500 out of roughly 4,600,000,000 years.

There are too many variables and not enough control over them to be certain.

So apparently humankind can dump massive amounts of non-native gasses into the atmosphere with no fear of consequence. Hooray! It's 1975 again!

But not in a native amount :P

You're citing Timothy Ball gbaji? You're citing a person who blatantly lies about his credentials and produces virtually no peer reviewed research?