Global Warming (Split off from the "Why did you vote for..." thread.)

No my town will not survive. Its whole existence revolves around coal. Its even named after it! Coal isn't green enough? How so? Because you all think it is causing *gasp* global warming? Did global warming make it SNOW last week? We got at least three inches, and it only just melted. I thought it was so funny when they were doing that global warming tour only they had to keep delaying the speeches because it was too cold.

We Montanans are very careful with nature and wildlife. After all we need to keep them healthy until hunting season.

So you think it is just fine that Obama is a lair, because after all, all politicians lie? But I thought you all said Obama was different.

Originally Posted by Catriana

No my town will not survive. Its whole existence revolves around coal. Its even named after it! Coal isn't green enough? How so? Because you all think it is causing *gasp* global warming

It creates loads of toxic byproducts and a huge amount of greenhouse gasses.

Did global warming make it SNOW last week? We got at least three inches, and it only just melted. I thought it was so funny when they were doing that global warming tour only they had to keep delaying the speeches because it was too cold.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what global warming is. Please do some research.

*sighs* I do understand it. I have seen documentaries on the boring thing. Still don't believe it. They just try and confuse you, and tell you it is too complex to understand.
If you want to know the truth watch, the Great Global Warming Swindle, it explains it in such a way that it is extremely easy to understand. Believe it or not it is the sun that controls our weather and we have no affect on it. It was made by the British. It points out things like during the industrial revaluation temperatures went down not up. Can't blame you for believing in it though, after all you have heard it was true your entire lives. By now it probably feels like doubting the grass is green or the sky is blue.

That is why the power plant uses filters and the like.

He said no lobbyists and his administration is filled with lobbyists.
He said he would work to create jobs and is planning on bankrupting the coal industry.
He said he would cut spending(no more pork) and he is spending like there is no tomorrow.
He said no Ear-marks and the bills are full of them.

There are more but I am to lazy to look them up.

Originally Posted by Catriana

*sighs* I do understand it. I have seen documentaries on the boring thing. Still don't believe it. They just try and confuse you, and tell you it is too complex to understand.
If you want to know the truth watch, the Great Global Warming Swindle, it explains it in such a way that it is extremely easy to understand. Believe it or not it is the sun that controls our weather and we have no affect on it. It was made by the British. It points out things like during the industrial revaluation temperatures went down not up. Can't blame you for believing in it though, after all you have heard it was true your entire lives. By now it probably feels like doubting the grass is green or the sky is blue.

It also lies through it's teeth.

There is, quite literally, not one climatologist that claims that global warming is caused by the sun. That was a theory put forth 20 years ago that was debunked five years later.

Global temperatures have risen since the industrial revolution.

Nah, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is well known to be pure fiction from start to finish, it's creators have even admitted to faking the graphs.

carbon dioxide is not bad, because it occurs naturally....

Originally Posted by the7im

carbon dioxide is not bad, because it occurs naturally....

As does Arsenic, Mercury, Nightshade...

Google for the Senate Minority Report on Global Warming, and you will find there are hundreds of eminent scientists in this field who have real doubts as to the validity of man-made global warming. That theory totally ignores fluctuations in the sun and how that relates to global warming and cooling. Add to that the fact that for the last ten years the earth's temperatures have been cooling, and I have my doubts as to how accurate this theory is. It wasn't so long ago that we were predicting the next ice age. I cannot trust the scientific 'consensus' of a theory that has been politicized to this extent, and especially one that enables our government to significantly raise our taxes without the usual outcry.


Besides aren't we getting a little off topic this is supposed to be about McCain and Obama.

So, as the title says, this was indeed getting off topic, so I've split it into a new thread.

Originally Posted by Catriana

Google for the Senate Minority Report on Global Warming, and you will find there are hundreds of eminent scientists in this field who have real doubts as to the validity of man-made global warming.

The report had a handful of climatologists, with most of the scientists having no relevant expertise.

It's roughly akin to asking 500 architects why your car won't start, and refusing to listen to the 200 000 mechanics who also answer.

That theory totally ignores fluctuations in the sun and how that relates to global warming and cooling.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...e-advisors.ars

Even scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil think that that answer is ridiculous.

Add to that the fact that for the last ten years the earth's temperatures have been cooling,

They haven't actually. The average global temperature continues to rise ever faster. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mperatures.png

Heck, even die-hard climate change denialists no longer claim this. They know that the evidence simply doesn't back it.

and I have my doubts as to how accurate this theory is. It wasn't so long ago that we were predicting the next ice age.

It was 40 years ago. With far less sophisticated equipment, and it was never the majority view.

I cannot trust the scientific 'consensus' of a theory that has been politicized to this extent, and especially one that enables our government to significantly raise our taxes without the usual outcry.

Wait, wait, wait. You accept the word of politicians on a politically charged issue, but not of scientists in other countries?

Further, there's no need to raise taxes to combat global warming.

Finally, even if taxes were raised, you are aware that the US budget is made public, right? So all the money gathered from the raised taxes would have to be put towards environmentally friendly causes, and anyone could check to see this, so the government wouldn't get any benefit out of it.

Originally Posted by John

So, as the title says, this was indeed getting off topic, so I've split it into a new thread.


The report had a handful of climatologists, with most of the scientists having no relevant expertise.

It's roughly akin to asking 500 architects why your car won't start, and refusing to listen to the 200 000 mechanics who also answer.

Nonsense. These are scientists who may be more specialized than a mere climatologist, but whose fields are pertinent to this debate. Your analogy is absurd.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...e-advisors.ars

Even scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil think that that answer is ridiculous.

The sun spots have a close correlation to climate change, so it is an area that is being explored. Cloud formation is still not clearly understood, and it has the greatest correlation to our weather and climate. We are still very much at the beginning of out understanding. What we do have is history, which shows times of much greater warmth than now, and ice-ages. The warm periods were far warmer than now and seem to have been beneficial for mankind. Certainly, Florida is still here....I think the hype we are believing today will one day be an embarrassment. The earth IS cooler now than ten years ago, and the last two years have been much cooler. Globally. I think before we start to do something that could harm our economy , (and which will be nullified by China, anyway, who will not be dictated to by us and whose carbon emissions will be growing faster than we can cut ours) we can afford to watch for a few more years and see it this cooling trend continues.

Originally Posted by the7im

carbon dioxide is not bad, because it occurs naturally....

Naturalistic fallacy. The fact that something occurs naturally does not make it good.

There are naturally occurring heating/cooling cycles over geologic time. However, the rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution has occurred faster than expected. Carbon dioxide levels have shot up during that time.

Light from the sun enters the earth's atmosphere, heating the earth. As it reflects off of the surface, the wave length of the rays is is increased so that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses trap some of them. More greenhouse gasses = more light trapped.

If I recall correctly, 10 of the last 12 years have been the hottest on record worldwide (since such data has been collected).

If you doubt the capacity for humans to drastically alter the earth, I suggest reading How the Earthquake Bird Got its Name



It doesn't focus on global warming specifically (though it is referenced), but it does demonstrate how humans have caused extinctions with alarming rapidity. I'm no bleeding heart conservationist, but I think anyone with a heart will find his narratives tragic.

Originally Posted by Catriana

Nonsense. These are scientists who may be more specialized than a mere climatologist, but whose fields are pertinent to this debate. Your analogy is absurd.

Nope. Most of them were biologists, physicists, engineers and meteorologists.

While that last group is at least somewhat connected to climatology (in the same way that a GP is connected to a brain surgeon, or an engineer is connected to an astrophysicist) none of them are climate experts.

My analogy is spot on. The IPCC has thousands of climatologists endorsing the idea of human-caused global warming. From all sorts of political, ideological, and cultural backgrounds.

The Senate committee has a small number of them, and mostly listened to people in completely unrelated fields.

The sun spots have a close correlation to climate change, so it is an area that is being explored.

You read that article I linked to?

Cloud formation is still not clearly understood, and it has the greatest correlation to our weather and climate.

Cloud formation is quite well understood, actually. You need moisture and something for moisture to condense around. Get both and you've got clouds.

We are still very much at the beginning of out understanding. What we do have is history, which shows times of much greater warmth than now,

Interestingly enough, the (very few) times when temperature was warmer than it was now all had incredibly high levels of CO2.

Guess what? Humans are now the largest contributors of CO2 into the biosphere by a massive margin. Indeed, we're essentially the only contributor. All the other CO2 was already part of the carbon cycle. We're digging up carbon that was removed from the cycle and adding it back in. What's more, the amount we're adding this way is more than most other sources simply recycle.

and ice-ages. The warm periods were far warmer than now and seem to have been beneficial for mankind. Certainly, Florida is still here....

Look at a temperature/time graph, the last time it was this warm was before human civilization. An incredibly long time before.

I think the hype we are believing today will one day be an embarrassment. The earth IS cooler now than ten years ago,

Source?

and the last two years have been much cooler.

Source?

Globally. I think before we start to do something that could harm our economy ,

Fun fact: Going green increases efficiency, lowers costs, and creates more jobs.

The initial cost is high, but after that it pays for itself in under a decade in most cases. Then, of course, the savings start being a net profit, which is always good for the economy.

(and which will be nullified by China, anyway, who will not be dictated to by us and whose carbon emissions will be growing faster than we can cut ours) we can afford to watch for a few more years and see it this cooling trend continues.

The "Why should we try to do the right thing unless everyone else does too?!" line. I really hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong.

From the Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...al_warming_go/

And the letter talked about in the article.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=164002

Originally Posted by Catriana

No my town will not survive. Its whole existence revolves around coal. Its even named after it! Coal isn't green enough? How so?

No, it's not green enough. Their are plenty of areas which do not have access to coal, and yet, they survive as communities without it. I don't see any reason why your town couldn't do this.

Because you all think it is causing *gasp* global warming? Did global warming make it SNOW last week? We got at least three inches, and it only just melted. I thought it was so funny when they were doing that global warming tour only they had to keep delaying the speeches because it was too cold.

Global climate change may very easily have played into your strange whether patterns as that is what it's predicted to do; produce strange whether patterns. You may not experience warmer periods, however, you will experience stranger weather, such as snow, rain, tornado's, and hurricanes at abnormal locations, times, and strengths, thus resulting in outcomes which we are not prepared for. (For example, here in southern IL we had the largest flood in recorded history last year.)

I wish it was abnormal. Snow in Montana is normal, as is the cold. We have always had very long winters. Actually we, though we complain, don't really mind. Snow means the drought is over! Last year we had green grass most the summer! It was amazing. If global warming caused that then yay for it. (not saying it did just saying the only climate change we have had was for the better.)

Originally Posted by 8bit

No, it's not green enough. Their are plenty of areas which do not have access to coal, and yet, they survive as communities without it. I don't see any reason why your town couldn't do this.

Many towns thrive off of a certain industry. I guess theirs is coal.

Global climate change may very easily have played into your strange whether patterns as that is what it's predicted to do; produce strange whether patterns. You may not experience warmer periods, however, you will experience stranger weather, such as snow, rain, tornado's, and hurricanes at abnormal locations, times, and strengths, thus resulting in outcomes which we are not prepared for. (For example, here in southern IL we had the largest flood in recorded history last year.)

That's interesting, because our hurricane seasons seem to have been significantly weak compared to the 2005 (Was that the one with like 26 storms?) season. However, there is really no denying what is going on with the climate. However, I think the green fanatics take it to a new level.

Originally Posted by Catriana

From the Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...al_warming_go/

An anomolously cold winter is not, in fact, evidence against global warming.

Global warming is a trend in average global temperature. The fact that it's been cold one year disproves it roughly as much as the idea that the fact that the Sahara is dry disproves this silly "rain" theory.

And the letter talked about in the article.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=164002

Which cites no sources.

Originally Posted by Catriana

I wish it was abnormal. Snow in Montana is normal, as is the cold. We have always had very long winters. Actually we, though we complain, don't really mind. Snow means the drought is over! Last year we had green grass most the summer! It was amazing. If global warming caused that then yay for it. (not saying it did just saying the only climate change we have had was for the better.)

So a place with traditionally long winters had a long winter? How is this evidence against global warming?


Please keep in mind that global warming has been going on for over a century, and that it's effects only really began to be noticed a few decades back. It's a slow process, but a devastating one.

It's like...a glacier, say. From day-to-day it seems to be staying still (Indeed, from month to month, even) and it also can recede at times. However, over a few centuries it can carve out new valleys and crush mountains.

Originally Posted by Catriana

I wish it was abnormal. Snow in Montana is normal, as is the cold. We have always had very long winters. Actually we, though we complain, don't really mind. Snow means the drought is over! Last year we had green grass most the summer! It was amazing. If global warming caused that then yay for it. (not saying it did just saying the only climate change we have had was for the better.)

My point was that the shifts caused by global climate change are unpredictable, and can not be measured on a local level as you're attempting to do.

However, if we look at global measurements...



And the longterm measurements:



And future projections:

Yeah! My dad is a doctor and got called down for two hurricanes, and they didn't happen.

You really don't understand. My town only exists to house the miners and the power plant workers.

And didn't John Carry say cows were a big factor as well? I remember hearing that. I guess MT fails on two points. We have lots of ranchers, and they of lots and lots and lots of cows.

Edit: if you read the whole article it says temperature had stayed pretty much the same for the last ten years.

And what do you mean the letter cites no sources? It doesn't need to it was written by scientists. They ARE the sources.

Originally Posted by Catriana

Yeah! My dad is a doctor and got called down for two hurricanes, and they didn't happen.

You really don't understand. My town only exists to house the miners and the power plant workers.

And didn't John Carry say cows were a big factor as well? I remember hearing that. I guess MT fails on two points. We have lots of ranchers, and they of lots and lots and lots of cows.

Edit: if you read the whole article it says temperature had stayed pretty much the same for the last ten years.

And what do you mean the letter cites no sources? It doesn't need to it was written by scientists. They ARE the sources.

That reminds me of the oil towns which were left abandoned when the oil was gone : /.

Also, I don't know about John Kerry saying it, but I have heard about cow farts releasing lot's of methane. (Lol)

Originally Posted by Catriana

You really don't understand. My town only exists to house the miners and the power plant workers.

Then I suppose it will adapt or vanish, as countless towns have done before. :/.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see the justification in irrevocably damaging the ecosystem of the entire planet (causing large numbers of deaths due to both drought and flooding) because otherwise people might have to move or become unemployed.

And didn't John Carry say cows were a big factor as well? I remember hearing that. I guess MT fails on two points. We have lots of ranchers, and they of lots and lots and lots of cows.

Cows do produce methane (not CO2) in large amounts, but they don't introduce it into the biosphere. They get it from plants that get it from the air that got it from cows in the first place, so the actual harm done is minimal.

Coal is CO2 (a much more potent greenhouse gas than methane) that has been removed from the biosphere. It's been locked underground where it can't contribute to global warming. By burning it you're adding more carbon into the world than was originally there, and greatly increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere.

Edit: if you read the whole article it says temperature had stayed pretty much the same for the last ten years.

But cites no valid sources.

And what do you mean the letter cites no sources? It doesn't need to it was written by scientists. They ARE the sources.

That's not how science works. At all.

A scientist, speaking without the backing of any facts, is simply a layman with some letters after their name.

If you don't have any good, solid, peer-reviewed studies to back up what you're saying then you aren't speaking as a scientist.