Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[adaminc]

I remember reading that the earth is still in an ice age... hence all the ice everywhere, so yes there will always be a "global warming" because the world will heat up, however the rate at which it would normally heat up has been offset by humans. I however think that all this global warming hoopla is overstated, the earth knows what its doing, it will balance itself out, the worse thing that will happen is there will be catastrophic environmental effects that wipe out humans and the earth will reset itself. (There is an article floating around the net on what earth would be like if all humans vanished, pretty interesting read, in a million years or so the only distuingishable artifacts that would prove we existed would be bronze statues, lol)

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Global warming is a proven fact, and we canadians HAVE to do our parts. As for environment, the better it is, the better the life quality. Humans often forget that we are a big part of the ecosystem and we have a major impact on it.

As for myself i'm doing my best, and always have the feeling it's not-near enough...

As for the economy, i dont see who is going to lose his job over this. It's the contrary, it will create jobs that never existed or were marginal.

And as for Alberta's oil sands, yes it gives work for now, but lot of water is getting polluted...as long as our governement make sure it's well handled, i don't trust companies too much over this...

I mean, no one wants to give up our lifestyle and live in a cardboard box, but we can limit the negative impacts...

a green site: www.treehugger.com

 

[Munxcub]

The earth has been warming and cooling since long before humans were around... I suppose earthquakes and hurricanes are our fault too?

 

[Flip]

Global warming is a proven fact, and we canadians HAVE to do our parts. As for environment, the better it is, the better the life quality. Humans often forget that we are a big part of the ecosystem and we have a major impact on it.

Sigs,

Have you read this thread at all?

Global warming is a proven fact,

Here is where you lose me.
It cannot be proven because it cannot be reproduced.
We cannot find another example to compare.
Global warming as it is described in the media - is a body of scientific opinion.

The debate that centres on this body of opinion has been influenced by
outside non-scientific forces.

You would like to believe the media would NEVER mislead you, right? >

The other issue that springs from your argument is that this "Global Warming"
WILL take our collective eye off the ball with respect to real and proven
environmental issues.

Deforestation in Indonesia to make room for fuel crops comes to mind.

Just because a technology is light on the CO2 we assume that it is "clean".
This is a risky path indeed.

I think you need to read back through this thread.

 

[Kirkhill]

Global warming is a proven fact

dogma
In general, a belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty. In the Christian Church, a belief communicated by divine revelation, and defined by the Church. Dogmatism is one possible reaction to skepticism: it selects some set of propositions and insists, apparently arbitrarily, that they be not doubted.

  http://www.answers.com/topic/dogma  (Philosopy Dictionary)

heresy (hĕr'ĭ-sē)
n., pl. -sies.

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

http://www.answers.com/heresy

More certainty from the lay clergy.  No need for further thought.  Albert and David have decreed.

 

[Thirstyson]

An article making the rounds at the physics department here at RMC on a fun way (for physicists at least) to solve the problem:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9253976

 

[Kirkhill]

An article making the rounds at the physics department here at RMC on a fun way (for physicists at least) to solve the problem:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9253976

As long as he knows where the Off-Switch is  ;D

And by the way - if he removes CO2 won't he be removing O2 with the C?  Don't we need that stuff?

 

[Thirstyson]

As long as he knows where the Off-Switch is  ;D

And by the way - if he removes CO2 won't he be removing O2 with the C?  Don't we need that stuff?

Yes, but all current measurements show significant rises in CO2 this past half century, while O2 levels are rather steady. I don't think they plan on reducing CO2 levels to where plants are suffocated and can't make us more O2

Not that I'm advocating any solution to this problem, but the mad scientist in me thinks this would be fun.

 

[canadianblue]

Here is where you lose me.
It cannot be proven because it cannot be reproduced.
We cannot find another example to compare.
Global warming as it is described in the media - is a body of scientific opinion.

All the more reason to be more sustainable. As for being "scientific opinion", so is gravity.

The debate that centres on this body of opinion has been influenced by
outside non-scientific forces.

Yeah, with the exception of a majority of scientists, the writers of National Geographic, Science, NAS, etc.

The other issue that springs from your argument is that this "Global Warming"
WILL take our collective eye off the ball with respect to real and proven
environmental issues.

Becoming less dependant on foreign oil. As well as getting rid of as many environmental regulations as possible.

I think you need to read back through this thread.

Sorry, get my information from people with expertise, not L Ron Hubbard the second [Chricton], and a few scientists who have recieved questionable donations.

I'm out...

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Okay so there's no real concensus over causality as it's solar activity or human activity or whatever. If there's none why the hell are they annoying us everyday with this?

Is it like, let's not talk about the real important issue, let's talk about global warming..?

Are we getting mislead by lobbies? In this case i would suspect nuclear power lobby...and maybe toyota.

As for the media credibility,  it's going somewhere near 0 since september 11, the iraq war etc...

 

[vonGarvin]

Okay so there's no real concensus over causality as it's solar activity or human activity or whatever. If there's none why the hell are they annoying us everyday with this?

Is it like, let's not talk about the real important issue, let's talk about global warming..?

Are we getting mislead by lobbies? In this case i would suspect nuclear power lobby...and maybe toyota.

As for the media credibility,  it's going somewhere near 0 since september 11, the iraq war etc...

sig_22_qc.  I understand what you're saying, but here's something to chew on, or at least to ask yourself: why is "Global Warming" the "Cause du jour?"
Ask "why go on and on about it?"  For some, they believe it.  Simple as that.  Others take it personally, they are taking ownership in this "dogma".  Look at Al Gore.  What could motivate him, for when he was VP of the USA, he did the square root of bugger all about Global Warming!  What possible benefit could he get from becoming the champion of "Global Warming, Inc?"  Does Washington ring a bell?  He'll be the "cool guy" come 2008, and I suspect that he could very well pull past obama and hilary to take the Dems to the polls vs GW Bush's successor in the Republican parties.
What kills some (not all) is the total brainwashing and "suddeness" with which the usual suspects (eg: hollywood stars) have jumped onto this bandwagon.  Much as with the blood diamond thing, they are a day late and a dollar short.  They ignore REAL t hreats to our environment, such as the heavy metals that are being spewed out and dumped across the planet.  Deforestation.  St John Harbour.  The list goes on, but all we hear about it "global warming". 

 

[canadianblue]

Are we getting mislead by lobbies? In this case i would suspect nuclear power lobby...and maybe toyota.

I blame Bill Nye the Science Guy, that mutha f$#%a has been trying to screw us over since we were at an early age!!!

 

[canadianblue]

What kills some (not all) is the total brainwashing and "suddeness" with which the usual suspects (eg: hollywood stars) have jumped onto this bandwagon.  Much as with the blood diamond thing, they are a day late and a dollar short.

Scientists have been talking about it for years. As for celebrities jumping on the bandwagon, I'd agree with you that some are hypocritical and Live Earth was idiotic.

They ignore REAL t hreats to our environment, such as the heavy metals that are being spewed out and dumped across the planet.  Deforestation.  St John Harbour.  The list goes on, but all we hear about it "global warming". 

But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?

 

[vonGarvin]

But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?

scientists are not universal in saying that global warming is a threat.  I ask you, nay, I challenge you, to go for any aerobic activity in Toronto on a hot summer's day.  Then cool off in the water at the beach.  After that, I would recommend taking a nice stroll along the Humber river, and if you get thirsty, have a drink.  Do that today.  Right now.  Not next week, next year or even next decade.  This is my message.

edit: "cool off in the beach" amended to read "cool off in the water at the beach".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?

How about - 'But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is NOT a real threat, shouldn't we take THEM seriously?

Just the other side of the coin. It's all a matter of who you wish to believe (trust). Just because someone is behind the popular opinion, doesn't mean he's right. There's likely plenty of 'scientists' on the GW bandwagon, only because it means an increase in their grants and professional stature. I long ago stopped taking the 'vocal minority' at their word.

 

[canadianblue]

scientists are not universal in saying that global warming is a threat.

People made the same argument with the link between smoking and lung cancer, and even 9/11.

So far the vast majority of credible scientific organization have said it is a threat, and we should treat it as such.

How about - 'But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is NOT a real threat, shouldn't we take THEM seriously?

Yes, however we should question whether or not they are simply there to plant doubt in order to bring about inaction.

Just the other side of the coin. It's all a matter of who you wish to believe (trust). Just because someone is behind the popular opinion, doesn't mean he's right.

Who do you believe is more credible on issues with regards to the environment, the NAS or Exxon Mobil?

I long ago stopped taking the 'vocal minority' at their word.

The problem being that inaction due to doubt could possibly lead to major problems down the road. Wouldn't it be better to start investing in sustainable energy, and trying to become less dependant on non-renewable resources? I'd say that the way we are currently living in unsustainable, so I'd say we should move in a different direction so that we are more environmentally friendly and sustainable.

 

[Yrys]

So far the vast majority of credible scientific organization have said it is a threat, and we should treat it as such.

He's right on that one ...

We should at least take seriously that gazoline ain't a renewal ressource, and threat it like it, i.e.
it's a capital (ecomicaly speaking) that earth has lend us that we are spending like there is no tomorrow...

 

[Scott]

He's right on that one ...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The problem being that inaction due to doubt could possibly lead to major problems down the road. Wouldn't it be better to start investing in sustainable energy, and trying to become less dependant on non-renewable resources? I'd say that the way we are currently living in unsustainable, so I'd say we should move in a different direction so that we are more environmentally friendly and sustainable.

I have no quarrel with that logic. What detracts from reasoned discussion is quacks like Suzuki and Gore with their 'Carbon Tax' propoganda.

 

[Yrys]

What detracts from reasoned discussion is quacks like Suzuki and Gore with their 'Carbon Tax' propoganda.

I'm not sure about Gore, as I din't see his movie or read anything he may have write. And I wonder about the fact
that the live earth concerts didn't seem so ecologically concern with themself.

But I have a great respect of David Suzuki, even if I never watch his show. He seem like a great human beeing,
who raise his daughter (don't know if he had other kids) into beeing a good one.

Does advocating for a carbon tax suffize to make someone a quack ? I wonder how it could be correctly implement,
who would realistically  say "Yeah, I produce X tons of carbons" but still...