The real inconvenient truth

[phantompain]

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/20 ... 05953.aspx

It's complete and utter hogwash. No truth to it whatsoever. People who reason things out with no preconceived notions, rather than running around screaming 'THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!' see right through this bullshit. This meteorologist has it right-the whole damned idea is outright arrogant.
Tell me, if all this global warming baloney was any kind of legit, why the abrupt change from 'GLOBAL WARMING' to 'CLIMATE CHANGE'? I'll tell you why:

"Damn, man, this global warming s*** ain't working, dude. Look at all this damned snow, man. And the polar ice caps actually GREW a couple of months ago-how're we going to keep the lemmings under control??!??"

"No problem. We'll just start saying 'climate change' instead. The lemmings'll never know the difference. And so long as we keep pushing out the Hollywood lemmings, no one'll care, cause, hey...some movie star I like alot is saying it."

And we all know how Meteorologist are right predicting anything outside of 2-3 days!

[Feanor]

8 months ago people were clamoring that the polar ice cap would melt away to nothing during the summer.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/artic ... ear-summer

That never happened. In fact, there is 10% more ice than last year. Of course you don't hear much about this new finding, or anyone admitting they were were wrong.

The size of the Arctic ice cap is still much lower than it was in 1979 when the NSIDC started measuring it.

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2008100 ... lease.html

[Rodster]

I have no problem with the idea of global warming/climate change. There maybe some truth to it but I don't know for sure since i'm not a scientist. I'd rather base my decision on what science finds or doesn't find rather than making my decision based on what a talk show host/entertainer thinks.

Some of the responses in this thread to the denial of global warming/climate change is straight from the Rush Limbaugh/ Micheal Savage/Glenn Beck page book. Don't get me wrong I listen to them with the exception of Limbaugh but every one of them are not scientist. They based their opinion on what they think is true or not true on the matter.

Like I said I will wait and make an informed decision based on what science concludes and not on some radio personality who makes a living by being opinionated and stirring the pot to generate more calls to the station.

[GameSeven]

It really bugs me that people just pick and choose what "technologies" and "sciences" they want to believe. Science is NOT religion. It is built on reproducible facts, hypotheses, and expert theories. Religion is a system of beliefs and philosophies. Totally and utterly different. People who try to make comparisons between the two are wrong.

Except that both can and do result in self-important zealots who are so convinced that they are right that they must shout with the loudest voice chastising non-believers.

"Repent! Repent!"
"Recycle! Recycle!"

Also, as has been pointed out, GW is a theory. Now, while there are some generally well-accepted Theories such as General Relativity, GW theories in no way hold the same sway. General Relativity *does* provide a model which can predict observable outcomes. The GW theories that I've perused, on the other hand, often do not result in predictable outcomes. If anything, they try to retrofit events and describe trends in terms that conclusively result in their initial premise. Thirty years ago that was a new ice age, then GW, now the universal Climate Change.

Further, as a theory it stands to be challenged by other equally meritorious scientific theories such as solar activity and its climate dynamics.

I'd consider myself Climate Change agnostic. While it's naive to believe that humankind has no effect on the planet, at the same time I think it is entirely possible to overtstate our effect, particularly when one has a horse in the race.

I think this is precisely what chafes 'non-believers'. Not unlike televangelists who have a financial stake in their flock, hyprocrites such as Al Gore will draw the most ire of skeptics.

A casual search of the Internets (Al Gore be praised), produced the following which sums up my position quite well:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ ... ruth_x.htm

[XXXIV]

Einstein had his OWN beliefs about science and religion...but to me, they couldn't be any more different at their cores.

Im going to have to side with Einstein on this one.

Can't believe you would choose Albert over me, 34

It was not an easy choice bro

[Brando70]

Forget "facts," people. You can find all the truth you need in blog posts, op-eds, and Penn and Teller episodes.

Now who wants to join me in stickering some books on string theory? Eleven dimensions? That's the work of Ol' Scratch, I tell ya!

[matthewk]

8 months ago people were clamoring that the polar ice cap would melt away to nothing during the summer.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/artic ... ear-summer

That never happened. In fact, there is 10% more ice than last year. Of course you don't hear much about this new finding, or anyone admitting they were were wrong.

The size of the Arctic ice cap is still much lower than it was in 1979 when the NSIDC started measuring it.

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2008100 ... lease.html

So? Maybe in 1979 it was too high. Who's to say what level is optimal?

Weren't people claiming back then that we were headed for the next Ice Age?

[Feanor]

Who's to say what level is optimal?

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Arctic ice melts to raise sea levels.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ ... g2/292.htm

And the millions of people who depend on glacier-fed rivers for their way of life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange

[bdoughty]

Forget "facts," people. You can find all the truth you need in blog posts, op-eds, and Penn and Teller episodes.

Hey now, there is some gold in them thar hills.

[Jared]

Bdoughty,

I do think that the "Bible Belt" image was unnecessary...I'm not a fan of stereotyping the beliefs of people based on region. The hippie point wasn't as much about generalization as it was that there's a tendency to take a position and make it illegitimate because "hippies" agree with it.

I did see your link about carbon credits, which to me, is a separate issue than whether current changes in climate are anthropogenic.

Matt,

That popsci blog post that you refer to is based off of an article in the (UK) Independent, that was criticized for being too confident in its predictions, and the headline was beyond what the scientist actually said to the reporter.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... e-sea-ice/

As for your claim about their being 10% more ice in the Arctic than last year, that is true. However, this improvement is after a slow trend in less ice over the last 30 years, followed by a massive drop in 2007. You're taking one data point while ignoring the long-term trend.

[fsquid]

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Artic ice melts to raise sea levels.

Those people know the risks, not our problem. Same with those that continue to live in New Orleans, along the fault lines in California, and in tornado alley.

And the millions of people who depend on glacier-fed rivers for their way of life.

And they will have to adapt to another way of life. It is called adaptation and survival of the fittest.[/quote]

[Feanor]

They'll adapt by getting more of the food they need to survive from outside where they live, raising global food prices. America doesn't exist separately from the rest of the world and it can't push the costs of its pollution completely on to other countries.

[LAking]

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Artic ice melts to raise sea levels.

Those people know the risks, not our problem. Same with those that continue to live in New Orleans, along the fault lines in California, and in tornado alley.

And the millions of people who depend on glacier-fed rivers for their way of life.

And they will have to adapt to another way of life. It is called adaptation and survival of the fittest.

[/quote]

Global warming wasn't exactly a "known" risk when these people chose to live in these areas.I would also like to point out that in MANY areas of the world people are simply too poor to just pack up and move to anywhere they wish.

I would also love to see the warm welcome these people would receive if they all decided to move to the US to avoid catastrophic coastal flooding in their home lands. Or if the entire population of NY city was forced to move inland. Oh yeah, that would be swell. Those stupid NYers should have known the risks.

And it is kind of our problem if our industry is the thing that causes global warming. It's not exactly fair if some non industrialized island or something is completely submerged under water due to the toxic emissions from the US, China, or India.

And before any one jumps on this, please note that i'm responding to a specific post about a "what if" scenario, not debating whether global warming is real or not.

[matthewk]

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Artic ice melts to raise sea levels.

I'm with Tool. Learn to swim.

[wco81]

Look, fellas, I don't take the strident stance of Teal. I believe in climate change. I believe that nature and man are responsible.

But I also believe there are much more pressing issues for our government and our society to tackle. But because green is now all the rage, this issue is taking a disproportionate amount of attention and money from issues and crises that matter more.

My neighbor down the street, a close friend, is undergoing chemo after a mastectomy. We have soldiers returning from battle with crippling injuries that will affect them and their families for the rest of their lives.

I think issues like those are much, much important than melting ice caps. Our economy also is putting 500,000 workers on waivers every month. That's a bit more pressing to me than carbon credits.

Take care,
PK

First of all, are you saying you support more govt. funding of medical research? Or even cancer treatments?

Second, the effects of climate change may not manifest for decades. But it may be something which requires action now, to mitigate the effects later.


Speaking of the effects, it's not only people who live on the coasts who'd be affected. If the caps melted enough to flood a lot of big coastal cities, it's not just a matter of moving people further inland.

If there was enough climate change to impact the coasts that much, you can be sure inland areas would also be affected. One concern is how potable water supplies would be affected. Many regions of the world depend on snowpack to store water year round, for example.

Increase in infectious disease is another concern, as insects and other carriers of infectious agents are able to reach higher altitudes or stay around longer as the temperatures increase.

[Feanor]

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Artic ice melts to raise sea levels.

I'm with Tool. Learn to swim.

You spelled "a" wrong, and swimming won't do anything about the problems listed above me by wco81.

[fsquid]

They'll adapt by getting more of the food they need to survive from outside where they live, raising global food prices. America doesn't exist separately from the rest of the world and it can't push the costs of its pollution completely on to other countries.

Sure we can. It is called being the big fish.

[Feanor]

Being the big fish doesn't mean you can control global food prices, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your country is losing its dominant position a little more every day. It's going to be China, India and other developing countries pushing the costs of their pollution on to you in a very short space of time.

[wco81]

Regarding whether we can undertake efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change given the current economy, this is the argument which has been used in the US, that it would be too costly, even in good economic times.

In 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern reported the economic costs of mitigation (1% of global GDP) and the greater economic costs of doing nothing (20% of global GDP):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review


I don't know what kind of a house Sir Nicholas lives in, but he doesn't look like a hippie.

[pk500]

First of all, are you saying you support more govt. funding of medical research? Or even cancer treatments?

Yes, I support government funding of cancer research. Cancer kills -- that's proven. There is no theory about it.

If you think climate change is more of a scourge on society than cancer, then there's nothing I can really say.

Cancer is killing millions now. Climate change may affect millions decades or centuries from now. I don't think there's a person on this forum who doesn't know someone stricken by or killed by cancer. How many people at this forum know someone who has been directly affected or killed by climate change?

So which is the clear and present danger?

Take care,
PK

[GameSeven]

The millions of people who live in coastal areas of the world that would be negatively affected if enough of the Artic ice melts to raise sea levels.

I'm with Tool. Learn to swim.

You spelled "a" wrong, and swimming won't do anything about the problems listed above me by wco81.

You spelled "Arctic" wrong.

[Brando70]

You know what I hate about these hippie environmentalists? They act like we're raping the earth, when truth be told, the earth is asking for it. I mean, if it wasn't, it wouldn't dangle its attractive resources in front of us like that. And if it would just put the oil on the surface, we wouldn't have to drill for it. If you ask me, I think the earth likes it a little rough and wants us to have our way with it.

[XXXIV]

Climate change has been happening without mans assistance every single day of the earths existance and it aint stopping for anyone or anything.

Get over yourselves.

The earth will be here long after all the blowhards are long gone.

[fsquid]

yea, but people might have to move.

[JackB1]

Matt,

As for your claim about their being 10% more ice in the Arctic than last year, that is true. However, this improvement is after a slow trend in less ice over the last 30 years, followed by a massive drop in 2007. You're taking one data point while ignoring the long-term trend.

True. You can see in 2001 and also in 1995, it briefly went up but then went back down again for many years in a row. Just because the ice didn't melt as much for one year is not a valid argument here. Call me if it increases 10 years in a row.