Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[ReeferBob]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

The Earth's CO2 levels have been rising by 2-3 ppm in the last decade and the rate of increase continues to trend upward. The CO2 levels were stable below 300 ppm for centuries before the start of the industrial revolution when they started to increase about 1 ppm per year and are now increasing more quickly. Our planets population has exploded over the last century and will most likely continue growing out of control. This will create an even greater demand for resources and more manufacturing. I don't see how it will get any better with so many people who continue ignoring the problems. If global outdoor CO2 levels approach 1000 ppm humans will start having cognitive problems. This is not way off in the future, but within the next couple generations lifetime.

The only place you are going to get any money is the US, hence, it is American's that suffer under this. We already have the most controls of anyone and yet we are still the targets. If those that are pushing climate "whatever" then why do they not look to China, South America, the Middle East an other regions where mass polluting is going unchecked. I see no benefit of costing a power plant $100 million dollars in "upgrade" to burn cleaner for minuscule gains, of course passing those costs onto rate-payers. At this point, there is very little that can actually be done to reduce emissions and most of the legislation now centers around pollution credits and other BS methods of reducing anything like crushing cars in junkyards that does exactly nothing.

Have you looked at the "climate change deniers" reports? For the most part, they use the same source data, it is just interpreted in a way that shows man is not a significant contributor to global whatever. But unlike the global whatever reports, the deniers reports include data that the whatevers deemed not germane to their agenda (conflicts - ie: sea ice actual levels). In addition, it also shows that the "problem", if it exists at all, is not the dire "Earth Killer" event that has been touted by those that make their living from pushing it. Some reports are saying if the Earth did significantly warm, the benefit to mankind is immense.

 

[sundog101]

The problem is that there's money on both sides of the issue and your not going to get a good unbiased answer.
I do feel people just use it as an excuse. "Let's see, what went wrong?" "It's not my fault, blame global warming."

 

[hatfielj]

There is nothing to debate. There are no hidden agendas in scientific literature. This is not a political stunt to make everyone liberal or whatever it is you believe. Climate change is real, glaciers are disappearing, ocean levels are rising (to name a couple) and we are going to be dealing with the aftermath whether people think theres some hidden agenda behind the science or not. Sad thing is that the people who doubt it now probably wont live to see the full effects. But their children will.
But its pointless to debate it with someone who's already convinced its a conspiracy. All you accomplish is getting them to dig their heels harder into the sand. And its not just about fossil fuels by the way...industrial animal agriculture is as much to blame and is expected to worsen as the demand for cheeseburgers and bacon continues rise. (that one might be too much to handle for the conspiracy theorists, lol)
History is the only thing that will reveal the truth. Too bad I wont be here to see it.

 

[hatfielj]

When u say "reports" are you referring to primary research articles? Because if you are, the evidence for climate change being real and already happening is overwhelming and undeniable. Please if you are aware of solid primary research published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals that actually refute that climate change is real, provide it here. But if all you are going to do is send us a link to some bs fox news sponsored right wing conspiracy theory website, dont bother. Lets talk about specific evidence and back up our claims with real research done by unbiased sources. And dont tell me you dont trust science because if thats true, dont go to your doctor when u get sick and dont fly in an airplane or about a million other things you depend on in your daily life that were figured out in standard scientific ways.

And PLEASE provide a link to these "reports" you claim exist that say that global warming would be an immensely good thing for the planet. I'd honestly love to read that.

The only place you are going to get any money is the US, hence, it is American's that suffer under this. We already have the most controls of anyone and yet we are still the targets. If those that are pushing climate "whatever" then why do they not look to China, South America, the Middle East an other regions where mass polluting is going unchecked. I see no benefit of costing a power plant $100 million dollars in "upgrade" to burn cleaner for minuscule gains, of course passing those costs onto rate-payers. At this point, there is very little that can actually be done to reduce emissions and most of the legislation now centers around pollution credits and other BS methods of reducing anything like crushing cars in junkyards that does exactly nothing.

Have you looked at the "climate change deniers" reports? For the most part, they use the same source data, it is just interpreted in a way that shows man is not a significant contributor to global whatever. But unlike the global whatever reports, the deniers reports include data that the whatevers deemed not germane to their agenda (conflicts - ie: sea ice actual levels). In addition, it also shows that the "problem", if it exists at all, is not the dire "Earth Killer" event that has been touted by those that make their living from pushing it. Some reports are saying if the Earth did significantly warm, the benefit to mankind is immense.

 

[DLHDesign]

...why do they not look to China, South America, the Middle East an other regions where mass polluting is going unchecked.

Because, for the most part, those countries are either not an active and willing part of the global community, or else they don't have the luxury levels that are required to invest in alternative energy sources. For countries struggling to provide basic needs to their people en-mass (for whatever reason - economic, cultural, etc.), the comparison of energy sources is based on ease-of-access (which includes cost to implement) versus output. There are other factors as well, of course (nothing is ever simple) - the ability to exert power through control of the energy, for example...
Anyways; until and unless a viable energy producing strategy starts to get handed out for free to developing and/or struggling nations, they are unlikely to use them. And even then - they still might not use them for other reasons.

That's the point of things like the carbon exchange. It enables those peoples with the ability (and desire) to affect changes the most to do so to their utmost while keeping the incentives balanced with those who aren't as able. And, at the same time, it does not force those peoples who simply can't keep up to be left behind - they are encouraged to keep up as best they are able, but are not punished for their inability (or unwillingness) to do so. At least; that's the theories as I understand them. This is certainly not an area I've done extensive studies in, so I admit I could have it wrong. What I do know is that it's a new thing that part of the world is trying. It's highly unlikely that the system is even approaching ideal yet; but like residential solar, it's a start.

 

[sundog101]

There is nothing to debate. There are no hidden agendas in scientific literature.

I don't know about that. It all depends who's funding the research

 

[4FordFamily]

Lets keep it civil folks we can agree to disagree. Let's not resort to attacks to make a point. We are teetering.

As with anything in life, often the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Stick to objectivity and useful conversation. Leave politics out of this as best you can please. Both parties have a bias that is not useful here anyhow, IMO.

 

[reeferfoxx]

I look at it as climate shift, not climate change. But really they are the same to me. Politics are the dictators in this whole issue. Really it wasn't an issue until proposed taxes for green "anything" were put into play.

 

[ReeferBob]

When u say "reports" are you referring to primary research articles? Because if you are, the evidence for climate change being real and already happening is overwhelming and undeniable. Please if you are aware of solid primary research published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals that actually refute that climate change is real, provide it here. But if all you are going to do is send us a link to some bs fox news sponsored right wing conspiracy theory website, dont bother. Lets talk about specific evidence and back up our claims with real research done by unbiased sources. And dont tell me you dont trust science because if thats true, dont go to your doctor when u get sick and dont fly in an airplane or about a million other things you depend on in your daily life that were figured out in standard scientific ways.

And PLEASE provide a link to these "reports" you claim exist that say that global warming would be an immensely good thing for the planet. I'd honestly love to read that.

Yes, you regurgitate what all climate worshipers regurgitate. Climate change. And every time you are called on it. And every time you are wrong. And the next time you spew the same stuff. Climate change is not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is man's roll in it. The climate changes yes we get that. It has been for millions of years. Of course the climate change worshippers realize this and focus on what is not in dispute to deflect from that goal. I'm not saying that climate change and man's roll is all about control and money but it sure looks like it on the surface. It isn't likely you would accept or even read anything that I would post to so I encourage you to do your own research on the antithesis of your side's opinion. Much of what you believe in like it is gospel is in dispute amongst the academics that research it.

 

[4FordFamily]

Yes, you regurgitate what all climate worshipers regurgitate. Climate change. And every time you are called on it. And every time you are wrong. And the next time you spew the same stuff. Climate change is not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is man's roll in it. The climate changes yes we get that. It has been for millions of years. Of course the climate change worshippers realize this and focus on what is not in dispute to deflect from that goal. I'm not saying that climate change and man's roll is all about control and money but it sure looks like it on the surface. It isn't likely you would accept or even read anything that I would post to so I encourage you to do your own research on the antithesis of your side's opinion. Much of what you believe in like it is gospel is in dispute amongst the academics that research it.

Please try to keep this discussion civil. We can dissent let's try to do so without talking down to each other and offending each other as best we can.

 

[4FordFamily]

Here is some food for thought - remember this?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

Here is an example IMO of proper prioritizing and minimizing negative economic impacts.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Here is some food for thought - remember this?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

Here is an example IMO of proper prioritizing and minimizing negative economic impacts.

Not sure, but they told us the "Ozone Hole" Was number one cause of skin cancer. Which still to this day, is an issue despite the hole closing.

 

[Bob Escher]

I had this rant earlier on another thread, and thought I might encourage more debate and viewpoints. Please, if you cannot have a constructive debate without getting upset, attacking others, or considering other viewpoints please move along.

Mods please close this thread if it gets out of hand. I am curious how many of us feel about this topic.

I preface by saying that my beliefs on this have "evolved" over the past decade.

Begin rant:
On the topic of agendas:

Notice the narrative has changed from global warming to "climate change" so now nearly any climate occurrence can be blamed on humans to follow an agenda. Perhaps that's a mere coincidence although many of us believe we see a pattern.

The data initially used to predict doomsday at the hands of global warming had 30 years or so of "normalized" (essentially omitted) "outlier" data that showed global cooling. Some experts say we are actually seeing global cooling.

A few things to think about:
1) We have been moving out of an ice age for a very long time (as a general very long term trend -- we were warming before SUV's and republicans existed)
2) Those pushing this so heavily are involved with the politicians trying to tax (and therefor generate revenue from) greenhouse gas emissions. Is it really about "saving the earth"?
3) Climate patterns have short term (5-10 year somewhat regular patterns such as La Niña and El Niño) and also sporadic patterns. No computer system on earth is complex enough to understand or accurately predict them - far too many dependent variables. 50 years, 100 years of a pattern is minuscule in the big picture. Analyzing such a small dataset with such a wide variance in statistical outcomes with exponentially more dependent variables than any of us could ever hope to understand and then to infer anything from this is dangerous and fret with potential fallacies and misunderstandings. One thing repeatedly forgotten in practice but taught adamantly regarding statistics and even the scientific method is that correlation does NOT equal causality. This becomes more true with the above constraints and concerns.

Now I am not saying that humans aren't destroying the earth - we ABSOLUTELY are. Deforestation, pollution, severe littering, "overhunting", overfishing, the list goes on and on and on.

My other point is that even if we were a statistically significant contributor TO global warming (I'm not saying that we are or aren't, I see scientists change their mind on this regularly including some of the most word renown on the subject matter I'm not smart enough to conclude either way), the next logical question is this, "Is this really something we should spend resources to try to combat?" If we removed every passenger car off of the roads in the US it would impact greenhouse gases less than if we removed all cows. Is either really a good choice? (I.E. "unit of benefit" vs "total economic loss"?) no, probably not.

Wouldn't our efforts and focus be much better spent on things we can have a marginal impact on? Deforestation, reducing waste/littering, changing people's attitudes about our planet and the creatures that live on it (which could foster an entirely new era of problem solving for both the public and private sector), cleaning our oceans, finding more sustainable ways to obtain natural resources that we can replenish and reharvest?

That's my ultimate point. IMO global warming is shady, the climate change wordsmithing further casts a further shade factor on the ordeal, and the marginal impact we can change with even the most extreme measures is probably statistically irrelevant-- or at least not the best use of our time/focus when we can have a much better net impact on our planet with a plethora of other focus' that generate less money (for individuals and institutions - not for the actual betterment of the planet) and votes than the "climate change" movement.

I do look at the world through an economist's lense, with a heavy dose of psychology. This is only my opinion, I am of course open to many others. Just be careful what data you use when making arguments. Follow the money, notice who funds them. This transcends most debates and debacles - not just this one.

What are your thoughts? I welcome subject matter experts (that I am not) and other viewpoints.

So to NOT WANT TO START ANYTHING THEN why did you start with this

We have been moving out of an ice age for a very long time (as a general very long term trend -- we were warming before SUV's and republicans existed)

What does Republican have to do with this subject?
The issue should be scientific Period your thoughts on is it man made, does it exist is it going to get worse or in a cycle.
Thanks

 

[4FordFamily]

So to NOT WANT TO START ANYTHING THEN why did you start with this

We have been moving out of an ice age for a very long time (as a general very long term trend -- we were warming before SUV's and republicans existed)

What does Republican have to do with this subject?
The issue should be scientific Period your thoughts on is it man made, does it exist is it going to get worse or in a cycle.
Thanks

I assumed as adults we could discuss this civilly.

Fair point on the republicans comment (although it was intended to be a neutral comment used for comic relief as I dislike both political parties)

 

[DLHDesign]

I encourage you to do your own research on the antithesis of your side's opinion

I've tried. Honestly; I have. But I've found nothing that has changed my opinion - which is why it's still my current opinion. I, for one, am happy to change that opinion if provided adequate cause.

Here is what I, personally, am looking for:

1. Scientific literature (that is; some kind of original work) - not an interpretation of that literature (eg; not a media story about the literature).
2. The literature has been peer-reviewed (and not retracted or debunked as a result).
   
3. The literature is current. I have no qualifications of what "currency" is, but anything from the 1800's is most certainly out.
   
4. The findings of the literature claim that mankind is NOT causing the climate to shift/change/alter/be different than it otherwise would be.

Note that point #4 may be my problem? Perhaps I've been looking for the wrong thing to show that mankind is not having a measurable impact on the world? Or perhaps I've misinterpreted your point and I should alter the gist of #4 to closer align with what your stance is on the topic? My point is; I can't know your (or anyone's) position until you show me, somehow, what your position is. I'm sorry that I can't glean it clearly simply from your posts here; I've tried, but don't feel that I'm able.

It isn't likely you would accept or even read anything that I would post

Your comments weren't directed at me specifically, but I can guarantee you that anything you (or anyone else) posts WILL BE read. And thought about. And replied to in a reasonable tone - usually with the primary goal of gaining clarification and understanding.
I can not guarantee you that anything you post will be accepted; that is true. But this is only because you have not guaranteed that it would meet the first three above criteria. Do that, and I will provide you with a guarantee that I (at least) will accept your source as equal and valid as anything I would post.
And to be clear; I can not guarantee that anything you (or anyone else) posts will change my opinion in any radical way. In truth; my goal with these discussions is never to change minds; it is simply to inform and be informed in return. I don't mind people disagreeing with me in the slightest - what bothers me is people who choose to remain ignorant* when given the opportunity to learn.

(* - I want to make crystal clear here - "ignorance" is not "stupidity". Ignorance is a lack of opportunity to know - which is no fault nor slight of the one who exists in a state of ignorance. Stupidity (and all it's variations) is choosing to remain uninformed when given the opportunity to know more. And even then, I don't label people as "stupid" - I just choose not to converse with them on serious matters.)

 

[reeferfoxx]

I dislike both political parties

Just can't escape politics, can we? lol I don't mind but the whole climate change thing might as well be Hillary vs Trump. Thats what it all boils down to. High CO2 + more plant life = more oxygen and balanced ecosystem. I think High CO2 is an easy fix for mother nature.

 

[Tahoe61]

Please try to keep this discussion civil. We can dissent let's try to do so without talking down to each other and offending each other as best we can.

^ Surprisingly this thread has been an excellent debate without the typical drama that accompanies this topic.

Once the topic ventures into politics the discussion ends and sides are drawn. Although I know that addressing the topic without introducing the political aspect is extremely difficult please refrain from political discussion.

The thread will be closed if the focus shifts to personal insults and postings political in nature. :(

Thank you 4FordFamily for your efforts to keep the topic focused and friendly. ;)

 

[TheEngineer]

Just can't escape politics, can we? lol I don't mind but the whole climate change thing might as well be Hillary vs Trump. Thats what it all boils down to. High CO2 + more plant life = more oxygen and balanced ecosystem. I think High CO2 is an easy fix for mother nature.

I'd modify that... High CO2 = reduced pH ocean water which leads to dieoff. Ocean dieoff = major drop in O2.

Remember this ecosystem of ours relies on a level of balance. You can't cut down the trees and pollute the ocean and expect it to still be capable of absorbing CO2. You also can't expect massive and sudden (sudden as in hundreds vs thousands of years) increases in CO2 to be compensated for on the same time scale.

There's a really interesting animation from
NASA that shows annual CO2 trends. I will try to find it.

 

[TheEngineer]

That was easier than I thought...

 

[reeferfoxx]

I'd modify that... High CO2 = reduced pH ocean water which leads to dieoff. Ocean dieoff = major drop in O2.

Remember this ecosystem of ours relies on a level of balance. You can cut down the trees and pollute the ocean and expect it to still be capable of absorbing CO2. You also can't expect massive and sudden (sudden as in hundreds vs thousands of years) increases in CO2 to be compensated for on the same time scale.

There's a really interesting animation from
NASA that shows annual CO2 trends. I will try to find it.

Think about all the co2 that volcanos release. The volcanic gases that are expelled in the oceans. What happens when co2 is released in water? How does a Calcium reactor work? CO2 acidifies the water and dissolving all the calcium carbonate which increases alkalinity. The balance is already there. Coral bleaching isnt coral die off. And a recent report from florida shows dead reefs reviving. The planet is finding it's balance for humans. So for now the planet heats up, evaporates water and expels it back in the form of rain, storms, floods etc etc. The balance is there, we just need to untuck our tails from between our legs and accept it.