Apologies for my political title, but lets take it down a notch everyone. 
Thanks!
yeah, i unsubscribed once i seen it had gone from music videos to al gore...
And yet here you are. Drawn back in by all the fun.
:bigsmile:
Shall I bring it back to music videos?
Haha, come to the Texas coast…our head index has been over 100F daily for a week or two now…and august only gets hotter. Oh, and our humidity is regularly 85%+
As for global climates…The earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles. The debate is how we are affecting these cycles. Only problem is we’re reacting so largely to something that can be a multi-century cycle, yet we only have data from the past few decades (maybe upwards of a century)
Back in the 60’s, there were actually big concerns over global COOLING.
Hell, geological data suggests that during certain periods when dinosaurs still roamed, temperatures globally were still MUCH higher than they are now!
The 1960s and early 1970s was when over population was going to kill the world from starvation so the Western world quit reproducing, the 1970s was when global cooling was going to kill us.
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
Armageddon & the Zombie Apocalypse !
More K-pop, please!! Or we can start a new thread? :party:
This is kind of classic already.
I respect every poster’s right to their own opinion, but scientific evidence has always trumped non-scientific opinions motivated by less reliable sources. I was raised in a Fundamentalist community by Fundamentalist parents, where a particular interpretation of a set of old books written by primitive societies of tribal peoples were held in higher regard than the scientific evidence they neither understood nor were fully aware of. Their strategy, therefore, having no evidence to support their old stories, was to attack and misrepresent the scientific evidence. Had I not been curious and/or brave enough to spend years studying science (and eventually earning a science-related degree), I would still be one of those people. Here’s a humorous video (or two) to lighten things up a little.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYMD0oSQQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwFSLm4pII
FWIW, it’s not simply the fact that the planet is warming that is alarming. It is the unprecedented acceleration of warming.
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf
It’s a small effect that has been hidden — statistically not possible to detect, until recently. That requires having taken Statistics 101 and remembering it, and doing the math — because it’s a change within the ‘noise’ (natural ups and downs).
With such a small effect in a naturally wiggly background, single events (like a heat wave or drought) can’t be blamed, when people look at the numbers. Here’s one such study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50657/abstract
If you haven’t taken Statistics 101, you need to figure out who you trust.
Then, whether your trust is based on what you wish or would accept,
or on the cold equations no matter what they say.
They’ve started to say — a tree, or any kind of plant, has no question about the changes happening.
But they don’t need to believe, they just experience — and, you need statistics to understand how to look at the changes.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phenology+climate
for example, from those results, a paper from nine years ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/nature02808.html
Nature 430, 881-884 (19 August 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02808
Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch
It’s not something you believe in. It’s something you know about — or don’t.
Google Scholar, while sometimes difficult reading, will help you find facts, for those who like facts.
Opinion sites, well, everybody’s got several, or echoes someone else’s.
That’s my opinion
and the facts I look at
You know what would convince me? If you guys would all walk the walk instead of talking the talk. Sell your houses and your cars, turn off your computers and smart phones, and stop buying food from the grocery store. Start living like it is 1610 or we will all surly die.
It does make me a little sad that we won’t be able to have these lively conversations anymore. I, for one, will really miss you guys.
And have the left start promoting Nuclear energy and free market, freedom oriented, capitalist answers, instead of the same solutions that always fits the left’s never ending, never varying agenda, no matter what the supposed problem.
Many assumptions here are wrong, however: Hey you said it, not me, I dont really “FB” either, I was actually agreeing with you on something.
I was responding to what you said, showing you the “argument” against global warming was not an argument after all. If you change the argument to “you cant influence what you cant influence” then yeah sure I agree, insomuch as what you think you can also limits what you can do, but in absolutes, its correct of course…
I think you mean your real argument is that we just cant stop it, ignoring the maneuvering statements of attempted superiority. However, if we make changes, we really can change the course with what the current science is showing, even though we may not be able to reverse things. It may not be as hard as most say either, and no its not going back to an agrarian society. Keeping numbers from increasing too much, planting vast areas of carbon absorbing plants, changing the way we eat and the way we farm, and reducing our energy usage and types of energy usage. In fact there is a scientist who thinks that just returning to a different way of farming could make almost all the difference we need to change course…if we all do it, and we do it very soon. Thats the problem: getting enough big farming businesses and people to do it fast enough. Not that we cant.
Yes we dont know exactly what we are doing, but unless you try, you obviously fail. Just like trying to steer a big boat, by paddling off one side, you cant really change course unless a large number of people paddle too, and then you may over correct, and make it go the other way and have to rush to the other side, etc. But the alternative is do nothing and go the wrong way. I dont think doing nothing is a great idea when there is a rock up ahead. A bigger problem is we dont see direct cause and effect. If we do something now, we arent going to reverse anything that happened, and things will get worse for many years to come. We wont know if we did enough for a long while. And yes, the glaciers wont ever re-freeze without another ice age. Plus, the bigger changes are made by the companies and methods they use: how food is produced, how energy is obtained, what crops we subsidize. Its getting the guys up top to do something to direct the massive manufacturing/production/farming, thats certainly more powerful and important than just trying to save power individually, though all help in the long run.
We collectively may be just a small blip on the timescale of the earth, and maybe an “overgrowth” that the earth would adjust to or through or we all die out and what does the earth care, yes. But organisms HAVE worked together to create the biosphere over many millenia, and we certainly CAN influence and change it: obviously we already have. The earth was not like this when organisms started, we did not have so much free oxygen to live off of, life created the shift in environment. And with our increased numbers, with some added direction and more advanced tools that we have, its possible to change the environment much much faster than ever before. Collectively we most certainly can change the course. Just like a few billion microscopic cells of algae can change the temperature and oxygenation of an entire lake or part of the ocean, so can we. And we have better tools that make us more effective than algae. But whether we can do anything collectively is the problem.
You presented no such fabrication. There are tons of studies showing global warming is happening too, with a couple scientists saying no. You have proof they are all fabricated? Without it, its just another “I think x” and does not counter evidence.
Yes, it could be a distraction, many theories abound. In fact one theory is there is already a way that is devised “around” it, or an unknown to many compensation mechanism the earth has, which will be able to turn this around before we kill ourselves and the “megarich” know about this, aren’t worried and are profiting off it…but those are conspiracy theories. It could be that we are all being farmed by others, (I hope you aren’t telling me we are farmed by aliens) …more conspiracy theories. Anything COULD be possible, but the fact that the earth is warming faster than “normal” cycles in history show, and we seem to be the only reasonable cause, has evidence to it, its just not some dream someone had that could be possible.
There is no real evidence against it that I have seen, other than a very small number of paid and influenced people who really dont seem to come up with any better than “I think you read the data wrong”. Maybe…but on all the many studies out there…they all read everything wrong and only a few relatively unrecognized (except for global warming opponent subsidy) scientists are the only ones who read the data right?…and what about the current situations around the globe where we do see effects? Hmm, just a little bit hard to believe its all wrong just because a few paid opinions say the data might be read wrong. Though I wish it was wrong, if I did believe it, its still just a belief, like the one where the earth is flat, or we will all become gods someday, or…whichever you choose really.
I’d also like to say I’m not on any “side” but side with what I’ve seen with evidence. You probably think a whole host of things about me because I do not deny global warming (like you assumed I’m a self indulged liberal facebooker or some such — lots of labels), but most aren’t true, and if they are, not for the reasons you have been lead to think. I think both “sides” of our leadership are doing a horrible job of just about everything right now…I just dont know a way out…do you? I also think the whole “human farming” idea (if the one I assume is the one you mean), is not very unique or out there, but again…that means what to global warming exactly?
You need to read up on the current science, thats not what is necessary, its changes in production and farming that could make the biggest effect, along with some personal reduction. With those kind of changes you write above on an individual basis alone, we couldnt make enough difference when only some do it.
And, quit expecting someone to be Jesus: I’m not going to suffer for you. If you wont do anything and I do everything we are still on the same course no? The change will still happen right? So personally, I do what I can I reduce my consumption the ways I can, try to convince people who listen to talking heads instead of evidence, but I’m not going to live a life with no conveniences to prove what cant be proven to someone. If I said I did not use any energy off the grid, would you suddenly believe? Thought not.
I don’t want to argue with anyone, really. I think that we do need to try our best to take care of mother earth global warming or not.
I have seen data that suggest it is happening. But with or for enough money they are people who will supply data to back just about anything up. Not saying this is the case.
The temp data for my area I posted back in post#19, suggest that the temps seem to be in a normal fluctuation.
If you look at the temps in 1889 where ever month is recorded it appears its warmer now than then. But if you look at the next year 1890 it seems warmer then than now. It depends on which month you compare. That’s 123 years ago, maybe that’s not long enough to see the change. If we had influenced temps with cars, industrial plants, pavement, power consumption, etc, I would think there would be some where in the recorded temps you could see a change maybe even a dramatic one. Back when the world went to industrial producers. But as far as I can tell it just seems like normal erratic temps.
.
I do know that mother earth is changing, she has from the day she was created and we certainly didn’t cause that.
I do wonder what happens to all those cavities under the crust that we keep leaving behind when the oil well’s go dry.
Its really a simple mathematical equation. If there is so many (total) resources here and we keep using them at a higher and higher rate each year or month (multiplier of usage), at some point we are going to cross a line of no return. When will that happen, I’am sure someone has already figured that out or their working on it. But it will happen some day at the rate where going unless there changes made. If you have watched the new superman, That’s exactly what happened to plant krypton. 
.
On a slightly different note, what if we made some mistake that almost wiped out the honey bee. Do you now how much this would impact us. Even a creature so small has a dramatic effect on so many different things in our life. A lot of people don’t even realize this. If there’s no honey bee’s what going to pollinate your crops. One wrong chemical move that goes unchecked and where all in trouble. Kind of scary actually.
.
Just my two cents I guess, I’ll go back to modding flashlights now. :bigsmile:
I’m not just here to argue either really I’m really hoping to help a few see things a little different maybe. Well this is a standard “argument” though that I see an awful lot: that the “scientists are after money”. Well, first off, you have to acknowledge its a two way street right? So if thats the case on one group, its the case on the other right? Which side has more money in it? Big oil of course, deniers. Do scientists really get much money for studies from the government? No, I was on that path, I diverted for several reasons, one was because I didnt want to be poor. Even so, it is never going to be the kind of money that comes from big oil right? We also know scientists are pretty smart in general, they did have to go through alot of coursework. So if they were after money, which group would you tend to see those scientists in? The group with the most money of course: big oil/deniers. Now say you think there is some big conspiracy! Lets go to another aspect here: Which group has less people/easier to control? Deniers of course. Now even if you are super cynical, you’ve got to accept that SOME of the scientists arent “corrupt” right? Well when there is thousands saying one thing on one side, and a few on the other, which group is more likely and more easily gotten to? Which group would be very hard to not have at least ONE or TWO people come forth and say “someone tried to influence me on this”? Of course the “conspiracy of global warming” group would have a few “defectors” saying they were paid to say this if it were true. So if you are going to bring this type of argument to the table, you actually invalidate the opinion of global warming deniers much much much more readily, the group you think you are supporting…again just simple logic here, no parties or politics involved, basic math and knowledge only. So really, this tired old argument can be completely dismissed, right?!???
I’m glad for the way you talk about this, you are being truthful and showing your opinion. However I’d like to say that this is another standard “argument” of not seeing the pattern personally (I’m not being sarcastic, or talking down to you, I’m in the same boat if it was my opinion, I just am hoping you see what I’m saying please) There are ALOT of scientists who are trained to look at the data and patterns who say its not normal. And really I’m not an expert in climate patterns either, I’d give their collective opinions higher probability of being right than mine (I could easily overlook something even being well intentioned and I dont know the pattern over many many years, and I’m not as good with statistical analysis probably, I’d guess you and most everyone is similar). But, I also do see a trend when I look, maybe its lucky and easy for me since I dont have to say they are probably right, I am probably wrong when I look. I hope you can accept its very probable that many trained professional people in a subject can look at their subject of study and maybe have much more ability than you do and you probably arent the one who’s right on that if you dont see the same thing. I’m pretty sure you can, I hope others can too.
Yes I completely agree, and something is happening to the bees…science hasnt figured it out yet. There is some evidence a chemical we allow in the US but they are banning in the EU is partially to blame…but no consensus like global warming. That certainly would be another disaster if it happened…
Now I’d like to point out just for the sake of pointing out that I do give credit where credit is due: you going back to modding flashlights, I haven’t done anything worthwhile yet in that field, so, I’d defer to your expertise there
One of the most serious issues, if not THE most serious, will be the progressive inundation of low-lying coastal areas…take a look at this…
As you probably know, during the Cretaceous period, when it was extremely warm, and the dinosaurs were the dominant species, sea levels were 550 feet (167+ meters) higher than today…although a considerable part of that was due to global plate tectonics, not climate alone….so we’ve been here before…thefactor that’s changed is that this time, the climate change is due primarily due to human activity (injection of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere)….whereas before it was due primarily to extensive volcanic activity. And it’s not due so much to CO2 as to sulfurous gas compounds….