Global Warming...The Scientific Debate?

[gohornets23]

I love the cognitive dissonance at play when somebody says the scientists are all lying in the relentless pursuit of money

assume you have no more than a high school scientific foundation (me) and really don't care that much about the global warming debate (me) because ya figure it's all coming to an end sometime  and it might as well be sooner rather than later #nolivesmatter

so anyways....working from that viewpoint...which scenario is more likely 

scenario 1) lots of different people who study climate science have purposely created a fictional narrative about how human behavior is heating the planet to catastrophic levels, they are motivated to do this for the following reasons

A - to make themselves and their careers very important 

B - to get more government funding for their lavish lifestyles

C - as part of a leftist plot to overthrow big corporations and create a new world order communist government

 

scenario 2) it appears that the release of CO2 is killing the planet, people who have made their fortunes, or currently make a living the in the oil/gas/fracking/refining industry can plainly see that if this is  true, than the government might step in and promote the use of energy sources that could very well cost millions of jobs and completely destroy the economy of the place they live. In response to this..it is much easier to find articles that support that position you really want to hear anyway, which is that the earth is doing just fine, nothing to see here, carry on as usual. 

I hold no ill will against anybody for believing in the first scenario..heck it might be true..i just doesn't sound very plausible to me...i know that if my livelihood depended on the oil industry...i'd be much happier believing in that then admitting to myself that i'm contributing to a major problem...

really though who cares.....I read while back that in order to reverse the affects of GW we'd have to immediately revert to the energy expenditure of a nation like kenya......that ain't happening...if the damage is done it's done..I say bring on the mad max post apocalyptic world already

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, gohornets23 said:

I love the cognitive dissonance at play when somebody says the scientists are all lying in the relentless pursuit of money

assume you have no more than a high school scientific foundation (me) and really don't care that much about the global warming debate (me) because ya figure it's all coming to an end sometime  and it might as well be sooner rather than later #nolivesmatter

so anyways....working from that viewpoint...which scenario is more likely 

scenario 1) lots of different people who study climate science have purposely created a fictional narrative about how human behavior is heating the planet to catastrophic levels, they are motivated to do this for the following reasons

A - to make themselves and their careers very important 

B - to get more government funding for their lavish lifestyles

C - as part of a leftist plot to overthrow big corporations and create a new world order communist government

 

scenario 2) it appears that the release of CO2 is killing the planet, people who have made their fortunes, or currently make a living the in the oil/gas/fracking/refining industry can plainly see that if this is  true, than the government might step in and promote the use of energy sources that could very well cost millions of jobs and completely destroy the economy of the place they live. In response to this..it is much easier to find articles that support that position you really want to hear anyway, which is that the earth is doing just fine, nothing to see here, carry on as usual. 

I hold no ill will against anybody for believing in the first scenario..heck it might be true..i just doesn't sound very plausible to me...i know that if my livelihood depended on the oil industry...i'd be much happier believing in that then admitting to myself that i'm contributing to a major problem...

really though who cares.....I read while back that in order to reverse the affects of GW we'd have to immediately revert to the energy expenditure of a nation like kenya......that ain't happening...if the damage is done it's done..I say bring on the mad max post apocalyptic world already

You left out the most plausible scenario. It is a movement by the government and others to convince Americans to invest trillions of dollars into cleaning our environment, and to give trillions to other countries for them to clean their environments. To invest money that Americans would be unwilling to give up unless a crisis existed.

So if 97% of environmental scientists agree that CO2 is killing the planet, and that man is responsible, why won't (can't) they show the human linkage? Why won't (can't) they show how this warming is catastrophic...or even detrimental? Why do the supporters say the debate is over and call everyone else deniers? Who are these people denying anything? Why won't these environmental leaders debate?

And like most people on my side of the debate, I don't know if the scientists are lying. I do know for a fact that the debate is not over. I don't have a problem with the pursuit of alternative energy. I think that is a good thing. I don't have a problem with some regulations designed to keep or country as clean as possible. But I'm not willing to spend trillions of dollars on unproven theories in which the "solutions" are even more unproven.

And who really cares? Every American should. You won't be able to hold on to your wallet tight enough to keep them out.

[baddog]

These scientists are like the doctors on tv commercials, dressed up in the full length white coats, trying to convince you that their new diet program or pill is "scientifically tested to be the best, and probably convinces people that it is backed by the AMA, of which there is no seal of approval.

Where are these scientists? I think that some jobs are created for the sole purpose of someone having one.

One thing I would like to see happen is the curbing of the deforestation of the Amazon jungle. Lot of trees that burn CO2 and produce O.

[gohornets23]

43 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You left out the most plausible scenario. It is a movement by the government and others to convince Americans to invest trillions of dollars into cleaning our environment, and to give trillions to other countries for them to clean their environments. To invest money that Americans would be unwilling to give up unless a crisis existed.

So if 97% of environmental scientists agree that CO2 is killing the planet, and that man is responsible, why won't (can't) they show the human linkage? Why won't (can't) they show how this warming is catastrophic...or even detrimental? Why do the supporters say the debate is over and call everyone else deniers? Who are these people denying anything? Why won't these environmental leaders debate?

And like most people on my side of the debate, I don't know if the scientists are lying. I do know for a fact that the debate is not over. I don't have a problem with the pursuit of alternative energy. I think that is a good thing. I don't have a problem with some regulations designed to keep or country as clean as possible. But I'm not willing to spend trillions of dollars on unproven theories in which the "solutions" are even more unproven.

And who really cares? Every American should. You won't be able to hold on to your wallet tight enough to keep them out.

I don't get how we can say there is no "human linkage"...you aren't asking for realistic, logical conclusions, you have put yourself into a position where no amount of reasoning will change your mind, like a juror in a murder case who won't convict on a mountain of evidence because they have seen too much NCIS and they want some dang DNA 

here's what is known: 

CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere

humans release a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels

since humans starting releasing a lot of CO2 into the air...earth has gotten hotter

do you really need more than that? 

If I stop on the scale and weigh in at 180 lbs...then I go grab a 20 pound dumbbell and get back on the scale, now my weight is 200lbs......does it makes sense for me to say "We can't just blame the extra weight on the dumbbell! it was probably natural phenomenon! My weight has been fluctuating my whole life...I just happened to go up at the same time as I grabbed that dumbbell and got back on the scale, the dumbbell weighs nothing..I heard about a dude over in Alaska who grabbed the dumbbell and got lighter!..so that means there is no dumbbell problem...we must never blame the dumbbell!!!!!

look I hate the government with a purple passion.......and I get that politicians are probably eaten up over how using global warming as an excuse they can demand more powers from the people...I hate the thought of it honestly...but the two things don't have to go together...just because this is a serious world wide issue doesn't mean that we need the government to fix it...if anything they would definitely make it worse

[Englebert]

38 minutes ago, gohornets23 said:

I don't get how we can say there is no "human linkage"...you aren't asking for realistic, logical conclusions, you have put yourself into a position where no amount of reasoning will change your mind, like a juror in a murder case who won't convict on a mountain of evidence because they have seen too much NCIS and they want some dang DNA 

here's what is known: 

CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere

humans release a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels

since humans starting releasing a lot of CO2 into the air...earth has gotten hotter

do you really need more than that? 

If I stop on the scale and weigh in at 180 lbs...then I go grab a 20 pound dumbbell and get back on the scale, now my weight is 200lbs......does it makes sense for me to say "We can't just blame the extra weight on the dumbbell! it was probably natural phenomenon! My weight has been fluctuating my whole life...I just happened to go up at the same time as I grabbed that dumbbell and got back on the scale, the dumbbell weighs nothing..I heard about a dude over in Alaska who grabbed the dumbbell and got lighter!..so that means there is no dumbbell problem...we must never blame the dumbbell!!!!!

look I hate the government with a purple passion.......and I get that politicians are probably eaten up over how using global warming as an excuse they can demand more powers from the people...I hate the thought of it honestly...but the two things don't have to go together...just because this is a serious world wide issue doesn't mean that we need the government to fix it...if anything they would definitely make it worse

 

Yes I do need more proof than that. You are saying the temperature of Earth has risen since Man starting emitting CO2. That is a correlation, and correlations do not prove causation. When the stock market rises, women's skirt lengths rise. Do you think the stock market caused woman's skirts to get shorter?

And how do you explain Earth's rise in temperature before man existed?

And do you know how much CO2 is released in one volcano eruption versus how much CO2 man has emitted in his existence on Earth?

And common logic, if you are in the mezzanine section in the south end of the end zone of Cowboy Stadium, and I'm in the mezzanine of the north end, if you light a cigarette do you really think I will get cancer from second hand smoke?

And please answer how much increased CO2 the Earth can handle before detrimental effects occur. After all, the human body can handle certain amounts of poison. Once you cross a certain limit, the poison will have adverse effects on your body. In fact, the way to immune your body from certain things is to inoculate yourself with small amounts. So how do you know that man emitting CO2 in the atmosphere is even harmful? Please show me the proof. And again, I don't know the answer. And the scientists don't know the answer. So why do the politicians want to shut down the debate?

[77]

all the big shots crying about GW are the same ones jetting all over the world in private jets. What a joke!

[LumRaiderFan]

6 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I'm not sure one way or another, but I do know that every time we have a cool day in june the global warming deniers get online and use it as definitive proof that global warming does not exist.  So if that is definitive proof, then I'm going to have to say that our forecast of a high of 88 friggin' degrees for the last weekend of October is definitive proof that global warming is real.

I, like many, don't doubt that there is global warming and cooling, but my doubt is that man is the sole cause of it...and the reason we should regulate based on that.

[Hagar]

Gasp, a Russian scientist (who obviously hasn't gotten a grant from our Govt), came out with this projection - an Ice Age, gasp.  Oh, based on solar flares, not CO2.  Wow, is he actually implying that global temperatures can be affected by something other than man?  What a heretic.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[stevenash]

40 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Gasp, a Russian scientist (who obviously hasn't gotten a grant from our Govt), came out with this projection - an Ice Age, gasp.  Oh, based on solar flares, not CO2.  Wow, is he actually implying that global temperatures can be affected by something other than man?  What a heretic.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

He might end up commiting " suicide" shortly.

[Reagan]

It's not difficult: The earth heats up or cools down depending on WHAT THE SUN is doing.  Period!

[new tobie]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:28 PM, 77 said:

all the big shots crying about GW are the same ones jetting all over the world in private jets. What a joke!

GW wasn't that bad. His VP had a masters degee in corruption.

[BS Wildcats]

9 minutes ago, new tobie said:

GW wasn't that bad. His VP had a masters degee in corruption.

This degree was received from same place that Hillary got hers.

[77]

47 minutes ago, new tobie said:

GW wasn't that bad. His VP had a masters degee in corruption.

And yet you back a woman that has a doctorate in the same degree! 

[Hagar]

8 minutes ago, 77 said:

And yet you back a woman that has a doctorate in the same degree! 

+1

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

GW wasn't that bad. His VP had a masters degee in corruption.

Surely you can name some specifics that earned him this degree.

[TxHoops]

Here is another piece that also examines the deniers and their talking points.  I realize it's long and takes more time than to hear Rush sound bites on the topic, but worth the watch if you want an in depth look at the potential disaster we face.  (I.E., this is for the Engleberts out there.  Although he and I couldn't disagree more on the heart of the issue, I gotta say he does have a genuine, intellectual interest in the subject.):

 

 

[stevenash]

TXHoops- If global warming is as bad as you believe it is, is it something we can stop?  If the world totally eliminates all bovines as well as the internal combustion engine, will the problem be solved?  Wasn't New York City going to be under water by 2012?

[Reagan]

54 minutes ago, stevenash said:

TXHoops- If global warming is as bad as you believe it is, is it something we can stop?  If the world totally eliminates all bovines as well as the internal combustion engine, will the problem be solved?  Wasn't New York City going to be under water by 2012?

 

[Reagan]

Predicted global cooling -- "Because the SUN hibernates!"  From the article:  " A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity."  Twice mentioned the SUN!  Not once has man been mentioned causing any perceived problems. Concerning this -- man didn't cause anything therefore man can't solve anything!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Englebert]

8 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Here is another piece that also examines the deniers and their talking points.  I realize it's long and takes more time than to hear Rush sound bites on the topic, but worth the watch if you want an in depth look at the potential disaster we face.  (I.E., this is for the Engleberts out there.  Although he and I couldn't disagree more on the heart of the issue, I gotta say he does have a genuine, intellectual interest in the subject.):

 

 

I couldn't watch all of this. I tried, I really did. I skipped through parts. But from everything I did watch, it is the same old same old. (That's why I skipped through much of it.)  I'll go back and try and watch it later. But I'm not very optimistic any new information will be gleaned. If you hadn't already, read the link that Reagan posted. And that viewpoint is not some off-the-wall outlier. There are many studies and research papers that cast doubt to flat out rejecting the Man-Made Global Warming theory. They are just harder to find since they don't fit the narrative.

If a researcher came to HBO and said I want to do a story disproving Man-Made Global Warming, do you think HBO would film it?

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I couldn't watch all of this. I tried, I really did. I skipped through parts. But from everything I did watch, it is the same old same old. (That's why I skipped through much of it.)  I'll go back and try and watch it later. But I'm not very optimistic any new information will be gleaned. If you hadn't already, read the link that Reagan posted. And that viewpoint is not some off-the-wall outlier. There are many studies and research papers that cast doubt to flat out rejecting the Man-Made Global Warming theory. They are just harder to find since they don't fit the narrative.

If a researcher came to HBO and said I want to do a story disproving Man-Made Global Warming, do you think HBO would film it?

Other than the researcher proposing to prove the impossible, I'm not really sure. 

I did read the article. You really need to watch the whole episode.  I think you would find it interesting.  The thing is, I truly believe one day soon everyone (well, almost everyone) will be forced to acknowledge global warming.  Most on the right have done so already.  (Even you will Englebert.). I suppose the man-made argument will still be up for debate.  I would consider it one of my great life's work if you were convinced ahead of the curve Eng.  But I know that's as unlikely as you convincing me of the opposite

[TxHoops]

7 hours ago, stevenash said:

TXHoops- If global warming is as bad as you believe it is, is it something we can stop?  If the world totally eliminates all bovines as well as the internal combustion engine, will the problem be solved?  Wasn't New York City going to be under water by 2012?

That is a great question Nash.  And to be honest, I'm really not sure.  Many would tell you it is impossible to reverse at this point. 

[77]

If you promise me New York and maybe California were going under water because of warming I would go out and get me a private jet just to help make it happen.

[Hagar]

It's so heartwarming that we get together once every six months or so and discuss this real but impossible topic.  Let's see what we've learned so far (go lil Johnny).

1- Way to many "experts" are getting millions in govt grants, or, actually work for the Govt, and will do what they're told.  2- Of the remaining "experts" some say it's warming, and some it's cooling.  3- Regardless if it's doing either, there's still not enough evidence to know for sure if its man made, or even if it is, could we reverse it.

That said, on the plus side, I get to see most of my favorite, and most intelligent, posters here, and the discussions are normally conducted in a proper fashion unlike most other topics.  We should do another topic in 3 months and repeat every 6 months like this one.  I'll suggest one.  Could Alabama beat the New York Jets?  Naw, interest would die out after football season.  Ok, who would win if Belgium and Portugal went to war?  I'll have to think on that.  Lil Johnny out  

[Englebert]

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Other than the researcher proposing to prove the impossible, I'm not really sure. 

I did read the article. You really need to watch the whole episode.  I think you would find it interesting.  The thing is, I truly believe one day soon everyone (well, almost everyone) will be forced to acknowledge global warming.  Most on the right have done so already.  (Even you will Englebert.). I suppose the man-made argument will still be up for debate.  I would consider it one of my great life's work if you were convinced ahead of the curve Eng.  But I know that's as unlikely as you convincing me of the opposite

I did notice you used the word "denier" in your earlier post. Like I've said over and over, no one is "denying" anything. All I'm asking for is proof that man is the main culprit (as the theory states). To do this, one must also study factors other than man. There are many other contributors to changes in Earth's weather, and to say man is the main cause is a confession of the true "denier". A denier is one that says man is the cause while discounting volcanos. A denier is one that says man is the cause while discounting the moon's fluctuating orbit and tug on the earth. A denier is one that says man is the cause while discounting earth's fluctuating axis tilt and fluctuating orbit around the sun. A denier is one that says man is the cause while discounting solar activity (which I believe will ultimately prove to be the main driving force behind the changes in earth's weather patterns.) A denier is one that says man is the cause and the debate is over.

And since I've read so many propaganda theories on Man-Made Global Warming, I'm highly uninterested in wasting 42 minutes of my life on another one that is sure to be disappointing. A big help and time saver would be for someone to post the times in the video that deal with the above mentioned factors. I am highly interested to watch the part that proves solar activity is not the main driving force of climate change, but am also interested in learning how the fluctuations in earth's and moon's orbit are proved to also have negligible effects.

I feel the need to restate my position (and many others). No one is and has ever denied climate change is occurring. Along with common observations, videos and research papers have adequately documented this. But none have one iota of proof that man is the main driving force behind this change, or that any changes in man's activities will curtail this change. Common sense dictates that man is not the culprit considering earth's climate has fluctuated wildly before man graced the earth with our presence, and climate will change once man has run his course. But no one is denying man could be the main factor. Show me the proof. It's like a prosecutor spending three weeks proving a murder has been committed, then points at the defendant and says "He's the culprit". The jury can get behind the prosecutor in the fact that a murder was committed, but would be highly derelict in their duty if they chose to prosecute the defendant with no evidence that he was the one that committed the proven act.

And not one study can adequately document whether this change in weather is detrimental or possibly helpful to the longevity of a hospitable climate. In keeping with the above analogy, who's to say that the murder was not a good thing. After all, the "victim" could have been named Hitler and his demised ultimately proved to save millions of lives.

One part of the Man-Made Global Warming theory that I (and everyone) can support and believe as proven fact beyond reproach is that the southern winds coming up from the Gulf Of Mexico has increased in intensity over the last 100 years. It is undeniable due to the fact that OU sucks.