Elinda wrote:
I've been told by scientists, scientist I know personally and trust. I've seen the evidence and now we're seeing the impacts. I also know that change to a system doesn't just magically disappear.
That the climate has changed over time? No one is denying that. That humans are more than a tiny part of the cause for that change? Not so much.
That our actions are having such a great impact that by applying the various restrictions being proposed by our governments will have any measurable effect? Even less likely.
Changes to a system don't "disappear", but they can be changed again later. The Earth has been through many hot/wet, cold/dry phases over the last billion years or so. Clearly, changes occur. Clearly they change again later. You are proposing that somehow this one change wont ever correct itself. I find that startlingly unlikely.
Quote:
This has been debated here before. Your only defense being that 'you don't believe it'.
No. My defense is that there is insufficient evidence that the proposed political "solutions" will have any effect other than to cost us a whole huge whopping amount of money. I think one of the problems with this debate is that we spend a ridiculous amount of time arguing about the degree to which human activity may or may not be "causing" a problem, when the real question is whether or not human activity can "prevent or fix" a problem.
At the end of the day, the question is whether or not those various proposals are worth doing. The former question is really irrelevant to that decision, isn't it? Unless one is proceeding purely from some form of guilt, that is. And I happen to think that's a pretty dumb reason to take action.
Ultimately, we can divide this into three broad categories:
1. What's happening is normal and will correct for itself over time with no major or irreversible harm to us or the planet. If this is true, there's no point in wasting resources on these proposals.
2. What is happening will not correct itself, will cause major and/or irreversible harm to us or the planet, but we can't prevent it. If this is true, then there's no point in wasting resources restricting CO2 emissions, right? We should be investing in domed cities or something...
3. What is happening will not correct itself naturally, will cause major and/or irreversible harm to us or the planet, but we *can* prevent it. This is the only condition in which there's any need to even consider proposals. If we assume this is true, then we'd need to determine which proposals will have what effect and take those which will be most effective.
Obviously, we can't know for sure which of those three is true. But your position assumes that case number 3 is. Yet, there's little to no evidence to support that conclusion. Even the "consensus" of the IPCC doesn't declare anything specific regarding proposed solutions and their effectiveness. And, as I've already pointed out, a whole lot of people don't agree with the consensus.
Could we be making a huge mistake? Of course. But history would seem to indicate that most likely, we're not.
Quote:
From the article I linked:
Quote:
"It is clear that climate change is happening now," says Jerry Melillo, a lead author of the report and an ecologist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass. "The observed climate changes we report are not opinions to be debated. They are facts to be reported."
Sure. Past climate changes are not what's being refuted. Future predictions and the proposed solutions to prevent those predictions *are*. Those are two different things. Climate change happens all the time, so his first statement is irrelevant. The second is just telling us what we already know and is also irrelevant.
If you want to provide a quote, how about one from a prominent scientist in the field stating some kind of effect delta between what happens if we don't change what we humans are doing, versus what happens if we take some set of specific actions. That's a lot harder to find. Other than very vague "If we don't change things, it'll be bad", there's a pretty large lack of specificity. Yet, it is specific things that are being proposed. What is the effect of cap and trade regulations in the US on global production of greenhouse gases? What effect will that have on the predictions? That's a lot harder to say...
But hey. If you want quotes, here's some from the
other side Quote:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.†- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.†- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.â€
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.†- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,†- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.†- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.†- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.†– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.†- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?†- Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.†- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.†- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.†- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.†- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.†- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
Is that enough? Or do you need more?
The reality is that over the last 5-6 years, global temperatures have been cooling, not warming. That's why it's hard to find any global warming sites showing historical temperatures past about 2002-2003. Instead, they continue to keep old charts and data with predictions going through the first decade of this century in order to make it appear as though temperatures are still rising.
The house of cards is rapidly falling apart. Scientists and politicians are finding ways to distance themselves from the whole global warming fiasco so as not to look too foolish. In another 5-10 years, the whole world will be looking back at this and laughing at just how wrong the scientific "consensus" was. Hopefully, we'll learn the dangers of allowing politics to lead science. Sadly, I doubt it...
Edited, Jun 18th 2009 7:49pm by gbaji
