Debate time: Global Warming

[Goat Whisperer]

Every scientific group (Which holds more weight then single scientists with no reputation to uphold) Basically agrees with the concept of global warming, groups like NAS and AAAS. The green house effect has been law in all my text books since I was 5. You challenging the fact that Green House Gases don't contribute to global warming and that humans don't contribute to Green House Gases is nonsense. The only truth to an argument you can make against global warming is how much The Green House Effect contributes to global warming.

Let me share with you quotes from CREDIBLE sources:

(Whenever something written like this it is additional information from the person or group who said the quote)

The NAS and AAAS are scientific academies with some of the greatest reputations to uphold in the world. Making their quotes very credible. Also, these people are scientists not environmental scientists or anything specific; just a group of highly recognized scientists with a strong reputation to uphold.

“The longer we wait to tackle climate the change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.”
-AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

“…delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur greater cost.”

-NAS Joint Science Academies Statement.

'1% GDP Loss From Action on Global Climate Change
20% GDP Loss From Global Climate Change'

--Stern Report

“Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reduction in the future, a potentially greater economic cost….Action sooner rather then later preserves valuable response options…and should lower the cost of mitigation and adaption."

--“A Call for Action,” By United States Carbon Action Partnership (UCAP)

UCAP's acknowledged bottom line is to build value for share holders

“Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the drivers seat.”

--Jeroen Van Der Veer

Chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc

Shell is the 7th most powerful company in the world. Must be pretty 'suckered in' to see global warming as such a threat.

“…employ the best available evidence and climate models, and imagine three future worlds that fall within the range of scientific plausibility.”

So look at a world where we took action and global warming wasn't real. A world where we took action and it wasn't real. And a world where we didn't take action and it was real.

--“The age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security implications of Global Cimate Change.” Published by Center for Strategic & International Studies and the Center for a New American Security.

The Age of Consequences is a group of world renowned leaders, scientists, military personal, researchers, etc. With no common biased towards or against global warming (Some went in thinking it was real some thinking it was false) A Military Lieutenant was the least experienced of the group.

“The scientific community has been shocked at how fast some of the effects of global warming are unfolding… Recent observations indicate that projections from climate models have been too conservative; the effects of climate change are unfolding faster and more dramatically then expected.”

--“The Age of Consequences”

“The consequences of even relatively low-end global climate change include the loosening and disruption of societal networks. At higher ranges of the spectrum, chaos awaits.”

--“The Age of Consequences

“The question is whether a threat of this magnitude will dishearten humankind, or cause it to rally in a tremendous, generational struggle for survival and reconstruction.

--“The Age of Consequences”

“If that rally does not occur relatively early on, then the chances increase that the world will be committed to irrevocably severe and permanent global climate change at profoundly disruptive levels…An effective response to the challenge of global warming cannot be spread out across the next centaury, but rather must be set in place in the next decade, in order to have any chance to meaningfully alter the slope of the curves one sees in the IPCC report… We are already in the midst of choosing among the alternative futures. The onset of these choices is rapid, and the consequences are likely to be irreversible.”

--“The Age of Consequences”

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Every single argument I have ever seen that attempts to "prove" global warming has been just as easily created as it has been disproved (and by disproved, I don't necessarily mean wrong, but at the minimum, it doesn't end up proving anything). If you have one you'd like to share, be my guest.

Also, if global warming is so positively true, why are there 31,000 American scientists saying it is not?
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

And saying it's half and half is just your guess. I say it's 99% to 1%, but does that make it true? No. Really, it doesn't matter what percentage may or may not be true, that's not the point. The point is, no one has proven global warming has anything to do with what we as humans are doing, so we shouldn't stop what we are doing.

I hate being inconvenienced and have money taken away from me for some initiative that I do not agree with. It's basically a loss of my freedoms because some idiots convinced people that global warming is real. I will say it could be, but I'm willing to take the risk. If others are not, well, that's up to them. They can walk every day to work if they want (which, by the way, actually creates a larger carbon footprint than driving, but that's another story). Anything to do with "stopping" global warming should be funded by charities, and people that actually buy into the bogus theory should give to the charities. And things like incandescent lightbulbs should NOT be outlawed. If I want to buy an incandescent lightbulb, and someone wants to sell me one, then I should be able to do that.

Oh, and the car accidents example still is ridiculous. We know that car accidents happen. We do NOT KNOW that global warming happens - some people only guess that it does.

Every single argument I have ever seen that attempts to "prove" global warming has been just as easily created as it has been disproved (and by disproved, I don't necessarily mean wrong, but at the minimum, it doesn't end up proving anything). If you have one you'd like to share, be my guest.

You haven't seen enough 'attempts' then. I have plenty I'd like to share but, you are to closed minded at the moment to take my arguments into consideration. So I'd rather not. Until your ready to actually listen to another side and be a real grow up.

BTW I could say the same thing about the skeptic side, I can disprove your point or bring one to the table that makes it half and half with AGW.

Also, if global warming is so positively true, why are there 31,000 American scientists saying it is not?
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

I think I responded to this one pretty well BUT I'm just going to make it more clear and simple. More scientists agree with AGW rather than with skeptics. 31'000, believe it or not is tiny in comparison the the other millions of scientists in the world that didn't sign it. I have seen this petition circulating and circulating so obviosly millions of scientists have seen it by now.

Also 31'000 single scientists prove nothing. They simply have no credibility; no reputation to uphold.

And saying it's half and half is just your guess. I say it's 99% to 1%, but does that make it true? No. Really, it doesn't matter what percentage may or may not be true, that's not the point. The point is, no one has proven global warming has anything to do with what we as humans are doing, so we shouldn't stop what we are doing.

It's an opinion not a geuss. I have spent hours developing a good opinion on this and so far I highly doubt you have. No one proved that Hitler had an atomic bomb, but we still went in risking lives to make sure. This time were only risking a small amount of our economy

I hate being inconvenienced and have money taken away from me for some initiative that I do not agree with. It's basically a loss of my freedoms because some idiots convinced people that global warming is real. I will say it could be, but I'm willing to take the risk. If others are not, well, that's up to them. They can walk every day to work if they want (which, by the way, actually creates a larger carbon footprint than driving, but that's another story). Anything to do with "stopping" global warming should be funded by charities, and people that actually buy into the bogus theory should give to the charities. And things like incandescent lightbulbs should NOT be outlawed. If I want to buy an incandescent lightbulb, and someone wants to sell me one, then I should be able to do that.

I'm sorry for being an idiot for caring about my future and my kids futures.

How does it create more carbon?

BTW buying and 'indecent' light bulb is a waste of your money anyways, the point is is that descent ones save you energy by not using as much to run.

 

[SgtSpike]

You haven't seen enough 'attempts' then. I have plenty I'd like to share but, you are to closed minded at the moment to take my arguments into consideration. So I'd rather not. Until your ready to actually listen to another side and be a real grow up.

BTW I could say the same thing about the skeptic side, I can disprove your point or bring one to the table that makes it half and half with AGW.



I think I responded to this one pretty well BUT I'm just going to make it more clear and simple. More scientists agree with AGW rather than with skeptics. 31'000, believe it or not is tiny in comparison the the other millions of scientists in the world that didn't sign it. I have seen this petition circulating and circulating so obviosly millions of scientists have seen it by now.

Also 31'000 single scientists prove nothing. They simply have no credibility; no reputation to uphold.



It's an opinion not a geuss. I have spent hours developing a good opinion on this and so far I highly doubt you have. No one proved that Hitler had an atomic bomb, but we still went in risking lives to make sure. This time were only risking a small amount of our economy



I'm sorry for being an idiot for caring about my future and my kids futures.

How does it create more carbon?

BTW buying and 'indecent' light bulb is a waste of your money anyways, the point is is that descent ones save you energy by not using as much to run.

Good quotes - they prove absolutely nothing, except that those particular people/corporations believe that global warming is real. I want to see facts that are indisputable. And yes, I know 31,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of scientists in the world, but it's still a dang significant number of people. And just because a scientist hasn't had a chance to sign the petition doesn't mean they don't agree with it.

Since you wanted me to find some proof for my side of the argument - here's some proof.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Regarding Hitler and the possibility of a bomb - I believe that was a choice well made. And I'm not saying that we should stop researching the possible issue of global warming, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be spending billions subsidizing "green" projects when we don't even know if it's going to make a difference.

The story of walking to work was in the Register Guard (my local newspaper, which is very liberal BTW). Some local politician walked to work on the save the world day or week or whatever that holiday is. The writer of the article said that even though he walked, he probably emitted more carbon from consuming the extra calories that it took to walk the distance instead of drive, just from all the packaging and processing that the typical piece of food goes through. No idea if that's true or not, but somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Good quotes - they prove absolutely nothing, except that those particular people/corporations believe that global warming is real. I want to see facts that are indisputable. And yes, I know 31,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of scientists in the world, but it's still a dang significant number of people. And just because a scientist hasn't had a chance to sign the petition doesn't mean they don't agree with it.

Since you wanted me to find some proof for my side of the argument - here's some proof.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Regarding Hitler and the possibility of a bomb - I believe that was a choice well made. And I'm not saying that we should stop researching the possible issue of global warming, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be spending billions subsidizing "green" projects when we don't even know if it's going to make a difference.

The story of walking to work was in the Register Guard (my local newspaper, which is very liberal BTW). Some local politician walked to work on the save the world day or week or whatever that holiday is. The writer of the article said that even though he walked, he probably emitted more carbon from consuming the extra calories that it took to walk the distance instead of drive, just from all the packaging and processing that the typical piece of food goes through. No idea if that's true or not, but somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

God I hate links and videos. I want to hear your opinion. Do you expect me to read the that paper and then spend a million hours writing a response you won't agree with anyways, because your closed minded?

WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT ANYTHING. THE LAW OF GRAVITY IS STILL DISPUTED.

Global warming has already had irreversible threats, in the quotes the scientific groups said time after time that the longer we wait the more damage we are doing to our futures. We won't harm ourselves badly if we try and we will most likely stop global warming. Anyways, would you rather have future be able to look back and say, 'well they weren't able to stop global warming, but at least they gave it a conscience try.' or 'I wonder what would have happened if they (my parents and grandparents) would of at least tried to stop global warming.'

The point I wanted to prove with the quotes is that, yes there is in fact thousands of scientists, in credible scientific groups that don't normally say things like global warming is real, that are saying that is in fact real enough to do something about it. Because it is a really big threat. Or for people like you to at least consider it, rather then just having a REALLY bad case of confirmation biased.

Most of the time scientific groups will not say anything at all. It's just to dangerous; the media likes to twist things like if a scientist says; "My recent finding suggest that increased rate of carbon dioxide in the atmospher may have adverse effects on the environment. Leading to changes in the warming trend of the climate." Then the media will run with it and say, "Scientist says that humans are destroying the planet! Earth may be subject to sudden climate change and doom in the next year!" Ruining that scientists credibility when doom doesn't come in the next year. Because no one goes back and reads the original statement or report hidden away somewhere. Now imagine if this happened to a huge group of scientists like the NAS; that would ruin so many scientists careers! Plus, all the credibility for never sticking their necks out before and always being right. That's why they are normally more careful, but thy see enough evidence supporting AGW and enough threats to do something about it.

I ride my bike to school, and I don't eat extra. I get the same amount of food at lunch every day, sometimes I eat it all, sometimes I share it, sometimes I give apart of it away. But, I never go back and get more. So it doesn't matter if I am burning up extra calories I never eat more food. Also, the amount of carbon from getting food from point A to point B is nothing compared to burning pure carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere. Especially, when it would be something like a granola bar. Which gets shipped by the thousands, not just one single granola bar at a time.

 

[SgtSpike]

And we could be living in a matrix for all we know.

Anyway, I see your point, your side of the argument, and you pretty much would rather be safe than sorry, and that's fine. Personally, I feel like there's too many lobbyists and special interest groups who have blown GW way out of proportion to what it is today, and that's why I'd like to see more proof before we continue dumping billions of dollars into it - because I still believe it is a hoax. You can't blame me for not wanting to spend billions of dollars on a hoax.

If global warming is true, then real, concrete proof will present itself soon enough. Until that day though, I'm going to still whine and complain about the government subsidizing "green" initiatives, and me having to pay for it.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well, when your proof comes it will be to late to do anything about it any more. I guess will suffer consequences 50 times worse then they would be if we would just change now. Dumping billions of dollars will be 1% GDP decrease as compared to 20% GDP loss that global warming will cause. (That's worse case for both in case if your wondering)

 

[SgtSpike]

Well, when your proof comes it will be to late to do anything about it any more. I guess will suffer consequences 50 times worse then they would be if we would just change now. Dumping billions of dollars will be 1% GDP decrease as compared to 20% GDP loss that global warming will cause. (That's worse case for both in case if your wondering)

It WILL, or it MIGHT?

Again, no proof to back up any of those things you are saying. Not saying you will be wrong for certain, but you're stating those things as facts, which isn't right.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

There Are No Facts On Either Side.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

But, still proof btw. Just not certainty. I got those percentages from economists, not AGW supporters.

 

[SgtSpike]

But, still proof btw. Just not certainty. I got those percentages from economists, not AGW supporters.

No proof either... I have yet to see any information that isn't disputable.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Anything can be disputed. EXAMPLE:

What color shirt are you wearing?
*Answer* Black
*Response* No your wearing a shade not a color!
*Response* No black is a color not a shade

Wow see, anything you think of can be disputed; what you need to think of is how likely it is to happen. Science is never finished and science is never sure. But, it gets to the point where the alarm signals go off and scientists say, 'this could be a bad one if we don't do something quick' So then we respond by doing something about rather then going, 'could? What do you mean could? Well if there is a chance it might not happen we shouldn't do anything.' I for one think we should have it switched: If there is a good chance it might happen then we should do something about it.'

If you don't think that there is a good reason that AGW is absolutely not real or not real to a point where it is very unlikely to be AGW; tell me why, and I can 'dispute' it to the point where it is either false, or an uncertainty on BOTH sides. Or perhaps you'll tell me something I have never heard of before and might be valid and might change my opinion.

 

[SgtSpike]

Anything can be disputed. EXAMPLE:

What color shirt are you wearing?
*Answer* Black
*Response* No your wearing a shade not a color!
*Response* No black is a color not a shade

Wow see, anything you think of can be disputed; what you need to think of is how likely it is to happen. Science is never finished and science is never sure. But, it gets to the point where the alarm signals go off and scientists say, 'this could be a bad one if we don't do something quick' So then we respond by doing something about rather then going, 'could? What do you mean could? Well if there is a chance it might not happen we shouldn't do anything.' I for one think we should have it switched: If there is a good chance it might happen then we should do something about it.'

If you don't think that there is a good reason that AGW is absolutely not real or not real to a point where it is very unlikely to be AGW; tell me why, and I can 'dispute' it to the point where it is either false, or an uncertainty on BOTH sides. Or perhaps you'll tell me something I have never heard of before and might be valid and might change my opinion.

Ok, I'll rephrase what I said then, because I agree with you that anything can be disputed.

I have yet to see any "proof" that leads me to believe that global warming is likely to be real.

 

[dt3]

BTW I could say the same thing about the skeptic side, I can disprove your point or bring one to the table that makes it half and half with AGW.

Then please answer the post I made on the first page

Here's my favorite point that I never hear raised. In the early 1990's, the USSR collapsed. Before that, they had hundreds of weather monitoring stations throughout the country, most of them in Siberia. Due to the resulting cash flow problem, they shut down those stations in one of the coldest regions on Earth. Giuess what happened? The average temperature soared!

Since 1990, world-wide, the number of weather stations has been cut over 50%. How does that affect the quality of new data? I would guess significantly.

Read page 5, then see the chart on page 6:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf


Now am I saying it doesn't exist? No. I'm saying I haven't seen enough proof that it's happening, much less that it's humankind's fault.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Here's my favorite point that I never hear raised. In the early 1990's, the USSR collapsed. Before that, they had hundreds of weather monitoring stations throughout the country, most of them in Siberia. Due to the resulting cash flow problem, they shut down those stations in one of the coldest regions on Earth. Giuess what happened? The average temperature soared!

Since 1990, world-wide, the number of weather stations has been cut over 50%. How does that affect the quality of new data? I would guess significantly.

Read page 5, then see the chart on page 6:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...econ-persp.pdf


Now am I saying it doesn't exist? No. I'm saying I haven't seen enough proof that it's happening, much less that it's humankind's fault.

There are more ways to figure out the climate then weather stations and this is climate not weather so they don't get much of anything from them at all. Scientists turn in hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a (link) single globally averaged trend. But this is the nature of science, no one said it was easy. This is in part why it has taken the scientific community so long to finally come out and say that what we have been observing for a hundred years is in fact exactly what it looks like. All other possible explanations (for example (link) Urban Heat Island effect) have been investigated, the data has been examined and re-examined, reviewed and re-reviewed and the conclusion has become unassailable. And while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers to elevation above sea level, mean it probably is impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is in fact not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends not the absolute level, and often, as in this case, it is actually easier to determine how much a given property is changing versus what its exact value is. If one station is near the airport at 3 feet above sea level, another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter because they are both rising, that is the critical information.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets. In this case, all of the other various indicators of global temperature trends that are available unanimously agree. Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements, because Global Warming is also indicated by:

• Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
• Weather balloons show very similar warming
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Declining arctic sea ice
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Rising ocean temperature

(BTW those were all links, I hate how they don't show up here!)

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend. Looks like the folks at (link) NASA and (link) CRU do know what they are doing after all.

 

[SgtSpike]

There are more ways to figure out the climate then weather stations and this is climate not weather so they don't get much of anything from them at all. Scientists turn in hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a (link) single globally averaged trend. But this is the nature of science, no one said it was easy. This is in part why it has taken the scientific community so long to finally come out and say that what we have been observing for a hundred years is in fact exactly what it looks like. All other possible explanations (for example (link) Urban Heat Island effect) have been investigated, the data has been examined and re-examined, reviewed and re-reviewed and the conclusion has become unassailable. And while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers to elevation above sea level, mean it probably is impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is in fact not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends not the absolute level, and often, as in this case, it is actually easier to determine how much a given property is changing versus what its exact value is. If one station is near the airport at 3 feet above sea level, another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter because they are both rising, that is the critical information.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets. In this case, all of the other various indicators of global temperature trends that are available unanimously agree. Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements, because Global Warming is also indicated by:

• Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
• Weather balloons show very similar warming
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Declining arctic sea ice
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Rising ocean temperature

(BTW those were all links, I hate how they don't show up here!)

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend. Looks like the folks at (link) NASA and (link) CRU do know what they are doing after all.

Ok, that's a pretty good argument that the temperature of the earth is rising. Now how do you go about proving that it is our fault?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

How do you go about proving it isn't?

(Believe me it's harder for me to tell you then for you to tell me. Plus, I'm sure you've heard the AGW side before, but I might not of heard your side before )

 

[wasred69]

How about this one IDK if some one said already...
First off every one knows that humans have mass populated within the last 100 years correct?
Next the temp has started to increase mostly during that time right?
The human body produces a huge amount of energy and heat...
so when the humans could not learn abstinence and with over population, it created a huge green house gas of un proportional size which equals global warming...lol

 

[dt3]

How do you go about proving it isn't?)

Because we can document that it's happened before, long before we populated the earth :dunno

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Because we can document that it's happened before, long before we populated the earth :dunno

Yep, it could have. But not to the extent that it is now. The carbon we are putting into the atmosphere isn't full on causing global warming. It could be causing a change in the magnitude and how quickly the change is coming and lasting for. We see that this is occurring because, it is changing faster then ever before and this time polar bears aren't adapting. That's why we call the polar bear the 'canary in the coalmine' usually they can adapt, but this warming trend is different; because they aren't able to adapt quickly enough and this time they aren't surviving.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Oh and also,

There is actually no good evidence that the MWP (midevil warming period) was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.
NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these (link) can be found here. Specifically, they have (link) this to say about the MWP:

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people (link) here as fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside.. If that is not enough, Real Climate did a remarkably in depth review of the (link) history of wine in Great Britain and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures.