arbusto_baboso (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 12:50 PM
Original message
Are there still any DUers who doubt climate change, or that it's man-made?
If so, what are your justifications for believing that way?
I ask because I'm debating a moron on another BB about this, and he insist that he's not just parroting right-wing corporate talking points. So, I'd like to see if there's any other approach of his I could be missing.
IndyPragmatist (217 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. By no means do I doubt it,
However, I often disagree with the numbers in some studies. You hear right wing talking points that say the only reason scientists claim there is global warming is because they want to scare people into providing them funding. While this is silly, there is a TINY bit of truth to it. I deal with grant funding all the time at work, and often, the ability to get future funding is based on the results of previously funded projects. I believe that some scientists are using the worst case scenario in many of their studies and presenting it as the most likely scenario to help their cause. I see many people in my line of work focusing on the worst case scenario, and ignoring the best case scenario because they need to convince people that it is a cause for concern.
I believe we are part of the cause, but there are far too many factors involved to say that we are completely the cause of climate change. I was a meteorology major for 2 years before changing majors, and there was a lot of debate over how much impact humans have on the increasing temperatures. Some said it was almost completely due to our CO2 emissions, others said we played a part, but there was no definitive link between the two. I have seen many studies that show only around 60% of meteorologists agree that global climate change is due to human activity. We obviously have climate cycles, and many ignore this fact when discussing climate change, and we have no way of predicting these cycles. There is reason to believe that we may be in a cycle, but also that we are adding to the increased temperatures.
I do not see a lot of research that factors in the replenishing of the ozone layer since the Montreal Protocol. I believe that this has to have some impact on our climate. It has been a while since I studied this, but I believe the thinning of the ozone over Antarctica caused surface level temps to rise, while cooling upper level temperatures. Since we have made great progress in replenishing the ozone layer over the last 20 years, wouldn't it make sense that this would cause surface level temps to cool, while raising upper level temps? I just don't see this in a lot of research. (Although, I must admit that I rarely read more than the intro and conclusion if the paper is more than 5 pages).
I don't think there is any way to doubt that we are playing a factor in climate change. However, there is a great deal of reason to question just how much of an impact we play in this. Lets be honest, we still don't know quite a bit about our planet and how it works, there could be many reasons for climate change that we havent discovered yet. And from a scientific perspective, it is irresponsible to act as if we know all there is to know about weather and climate.
arbusto_baboso (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. While you do make some valid points, let me just ask one question.
What would be the harm in dealing with climate change as if it IS primarily man-made, and that the worst case scenarios are probably true? Do you see any harm in doing that?
IndyPragmatist (217 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not at all,
Even if we found out that humans had nothing to do with climate change, it is forcing people to think about their actions and how they impact the environment and others, which is definitely a good thing.
One thing that cannot be debated, we are hurting the environment. Climate change may not be completely proven, but our influence on air pollution is. Before global warming came around, people seemed to ignore how their SUVs hurt air quality. I guess it was difficult to convince people that air pollution was something to be concerned about. Global warming and climate change have convinced people that their actions do have some effect on the environment.
IndyPragmatist (217 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Yep, some act as if being eco-friendly would be soooo difficult
How difficult is it to drop your cans and bottles into a separate container? Or to turn off your car if you are sitting in a drive-through or at a train crossing? Even tiny changes, if done by enough people, have a huge impact. However, some think its their right to throw everything into a landfill.
Honestly, I don't think the biggest concern is the US. As China and India become more industrialized, they will start polluting like crazy and will make us look like tree-huggers. The only way is to develop cleaner energy sources that are efficient. We may have the money here to force less than efficient methods onto people for the sake of the environment, but they wont do that in China or India. They will only adopt green policies if they are cost efficient.
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. what he said
i will go with that
it doesnt help the debate when as soon as any skepticism is voiced you are labeled "denier" i dont deny climate change
it happens 4 times a year
i do wonder if the scant evidence collected SO FAR can be useful
the fact that i am not 100% bought in on it does not make me a "denier"
any more than your passionate belief in something makes it true
Edweird (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. Present. The climate is clearly changing - if it weren't THAT would be cause for alarm.
Edited on Mon Jun-20-11 01:27 PM by Edweird
However I don't believe it's man made. In fact, I find it laughably arrogant that humans believe they have that much power over the planet.
All of the arguments for man made global warming rely on cherry picked informatino and a very narrow view of climate history. I'm replying from my phone on my lunch break and I'll be back later on my laptop to deal with the inevitable flames. I'll be happy to provide the science behind my position at that time.
I believe they successfully unleashed serious bannage after a poll related to this topic a couple of years ago, none of the survivors who still harbor any heretical thoughts would likely be so careless as to own up to it now.
arbusto_baboso
While you do make some valid points, let me just ask one question.
What would be the harm in dealing with climate change as if it IS primarily man-made, and that the worst case scenarios are probably true? Do you see any harm in doing that?
Think I'll fire up the truck, turn the air conditioner wide open and smoke another pack of cigarettes. :-) That ought to fix things.
arbusto_baboso (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. While you do make some valid points, let me just ask one question.
What would be the harm in dealing with climate change as if it IS primarily man-made, and that the worst case scenarios are probably true? Do you see any harm in doing that?
NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!
One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water. Let’s face it, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now….just wait.
There is only one problem with this scenario, Mother Nature isn’t being cooperative. You see it is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that. Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.
The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).
But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dummiedestroyer/storms.jpg)
It's Jennifer Lopez.
If I lived in the middle of nowhere, I'd want a bunch of cats to watch out for me too. There's no more selfish creature on this earth than a cat, unless you happen to live in a heavily Democratic urban voting district.
The latest radar (8:15 p.m. central time, 7:15 p.m. mountain time) shows franksolich is now out of the red area, on the rim of the dark yellow area. The red areas, both top and bottom, appear to be converging on.....Omaha; they're already on the western edge of that city.The weather is screwing with the College World Series.
Alas Omaha. Omaha always gets it.
The weather is screwing with the College World Series.
Hopefully, this delay will stiffen the arms of the Florida pitchers.
They had a tornado warning siren, which is pretty much a guarantee there will be no tornado.
Okay, here it is, nearly 10:00 p.m. central time, 9:00 p.m. mountain time.
It's cleared up around here, although it seems there's some angry red blobs evolving on the radar west of here, where the roving partner's at, and those might, or might not, get here sometime after midnight.
I'm hitting the sack. I'll describe the destruction around here in the morning, when there's light, and one can see. The cats remain mellow and peacefully slumbering.
It's most odd, though, that any tornadoes that happened, took place near or around where franksolich once lived, but doesn't any more......but nothing happened where franksolich currently lives.
You need to get an inexpensive digital camera to take pictures up there.
This was extraordinary last night, sir.
The photographs one usually sees of storms in Nebraska are those of ordinary storms, just like the photographs I'd posted earlier in this thread.
During extraordinary storms, nobody, but nobody, is out taking pictures.
There are no photographs of extraordinary storms in Nebraska; only photographs of ordinary storms.
A month or two ago I went outside during a heavy windstorm with my camera set for video. Even though it was early afternoon it was fairly dark, but not too dark to see a huge branch fly from one neighbors tree, across our backyard and over the street to finally land in another neighbors yard. I went back inside at that point.
Edweird (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-20-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. Present. The climate is clearly changing - if it weren't THAT would be cause for alarm.
Edited on Mon Jun-20-11 01:27 PM by Edweird
However I don't believe it's man made. In fact, I find it laughably arrogant that humans believe they have that much power over the planet.
All of the arguments for man made global warming rely on cherry picked informatino and a very narrow view of climate history. I'm replying from my phone on my lunch break and I'll be back later on my laptop to deal with the inevitable flames. I'll be happy to provide the science behind my position at that time.
I heard Rush say years ago that it is arrogant to believe that man could destroy something that God created.
I heard Rush say years ago that it is arrogant to believe that man could destroy something that God created.
I heard Rush say years ago that it is arrogant to believe that man could destroy something that God created.
A month or two ago I went outside during a heavy windstorm with my camera set for video. Even though it was early afternoon it was fairly dark, but not too dark to see a huge branch fly from one neighbors tree, across our backyard and over the street to finally land in another neighbors yard. I went back inside at that point.
No primitive has ever seen a thunderstorm, even a little itty-bitty one, in the Sandhills.
If he had, he wouldn't be a primitive any more, and would be a God-respecting person in addition to that.
And as for the scientists studying the matter, they're all sitting in offices and laboratories, making computer simulations and tinkering with a few factors to see what they can extrapolate from that. Human knowledge, human understanding, is finite, while Reality is infinite. There's no way a man's brain or a computer is big enough to see and analyze all things, all factors concerning the way climate is.
And as for the scientists studying the matter, they're all sitting in offices and laboratories, making computer simulations and tinkering with a few factors to see what they can extrapolate from that. Human knowledge, human understanding, is finite, while Reality is infinite. There's no way a man's brain or a computer is big enough to see and analyze all things, all factors concerning the way climate is."Climate scientists" do only one thing. They finagle data in whatever way is necessary to keep the faucet open on government grant money.