Thread: Global Warming oops itself again

On what concerns the issue of Global Warming, I count myself among the skeptics. Mostly because of the lack of proper evidence.

When reading about the latest measurements on the Artic Sea my immediate thought is not "I told you so", because we also lack any proper evidence that Global Warming is a fantasy. Instead, I'm drawn to Ted Scambos comment that we have indeed a whole lot more to learn.

But to be perfectly honest, I must confess at the same time my distrust of the whole concept of Global Warming. That article couldn't stop me from being reminded of one of my favorite George Carlin moments.

I've always seen climate change alarmism as nothing more than a way to expand the power of government, and strip people of their freedom unnecessarily. I'm not denying that climate change exists. Of course it exists. The part I'm skeptical about is whether it's caused by humans, and whether it's actually a problem. There just isn't enough evidence over a long enough period of time to make an accurate assessment of the situation. Al Gore claims a half-degree increase, over 100 years. I have a hard time with two aspects of this: The accuracy of that number, and its meaning. First, I am not convinced that it is reliable data. What were people using in the early 20th century to measure temperatures around the world? Mercury thermometers. Are mercury thermometers accurate? Yes, but with low precision. Also, there were parts of the world where we couldn't measure the average temperature a hundred years ago. It was just logistically impossible. The second problem I have with Al Gore's magic number is that the records only go back to 1880, and despite the beginning of record keeping coinciding with the industrial revolution, we have no way to know whether there was already a warming trend, or if the temperature was steady, or if we are simply bouncing back from a couple of hundred years of cooling. I live in western Wisconsin, in the USA, where I can remember 110°F/43°C days in the summer, as a child. We simply don't have days that hot anymore, and in fact, this summer had exactly zero days over 100°F/38°C, where I live. Climate change is real. Whether humans are the cause is the part I doubt. We just don't know enough about the earth, and its very long-term climate, to make realistic predictions of its direction.

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

Oh Jesus...

If you don't believe humans can have large impacts on the Earth, go drink the water near a factory's dump drains.

Humans can have huge impacts and it doesn't surprise me that between all the deforestation and carbon dioxide emission, the Earth is getting hotter.

Did I, at any point in my post, imply that humans can't have an impact on the earth? My point was that there is insufficient data to draw that conclusion about this specific issue.

Originally Posted by Elkvis

The part I'm skeptical about is whether it's caused by humans, and whether it's actually a problem.

It is a problem. For us. Maybe not the planet, but for us humans living on it.

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

If you don't believe humans can have large impacts on the Earth, go drink the water near a factory's dump drains.

No one claimed humans don't have a big impact on nature.

Humans can have huge impacts and it doesn't surprise me that between all the deforestation and carbon dioxide emission, the Earth is getting hotter.

There is still no proof that we are the cause of the rising temperature, if the temperature is indeed rising. We don't even know for sure that it's the carbon dioxide that's causing it.

Originally Posted by Elysia

It is a problem. For us. Maybe not the planet, but for us humans living on it.

I guess I meant that it's unclear whether climate change will become significant enough to cause actual problems. At this point, it's all theoretical and speculative.

Originally Posted by Elkvis

I guess I meant that it's unclear whether climate change will become significant enough to cause actual problems. At this point, it's all theoretical and speculative.

Well, I suppose this can be seen as debatable, but... if we can link rising sea levels with the climate change, then the climate change is indeed causing problems already.
But we don't know if it will become significant enough to cause serious problems of disaster scale, this much is true.

The other main problem I have with the climate change alarmists and their claim of "scientific consensus" is the word "consensus." When something is proven as scientific fact, consensus is irrelevant. The green color of plants is caused by chlorophyll. There is no room for consensus here. It's proven fact, with verifiable proof that can be discovered experimentally, and that can be repeated indefinitely with the same result. There could be a "scientific consensus" that the color is the result of a flying spaghetti monster painting the plants with his green saliva, using his tongue, but that wouldn't make it correct. The "consensus" that people talk about when discussing climate change is more-or-less a belief. Yes, there is some evidence, but there is no incontrovertible proof with repeatable experimental results.

Till the Climate Change (CC) supporters overwhelmingly support the building of more nuclear power plants, I will believe they are idiots or lying on purpose.

Tim S.

O_o

I could not agree more strongly with the sentiment that the cause or even the reality of global warming is irrelevant. I don't care why we chase cleaner air and water. I just want cleaner air and water, and I live in the United States; I can't imagine how foul the air is some places I've seen. That is a situation that needs our attention until a practical solution is implemented.

As far as it goes though, I used to be on the fence because of some of the issues already referenced. A few weeks back, I watched a relatively new presentation specifically addressing those issues as well as some of the obvious exaggerations presented in contrast to what those scientists have actually presented. As far as I'm concerned now, humans are definitely the cause of the actually rather small surplus warming.

Soma