Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off, I believe in climate change but I was wondering, if you don't believe in it then what proof do you need to know it is real? I mean, is it simply because the idea of it is offensive to you? The other thing too I find curious is that most people that don't believe it are conservatives. But, as a conservative, shouldn't we conserve the world we live in from being destroyed by the hand of man? Teddy Roosevelt was a republican and he conserved our lands by doubling the number of national parks in our country. Doesn't conservatism also equate to conservationism??
The argument is not about warming, but what causes it and how severe it is. Huge cycles of freezing and warming plagued planet earth (and other plants of our solar system) before humans (or life) even existed.
The argument is not about warming, but what causes it and how severe it is. Huge cycles of freezing and warming plagued planet earth (and other plants of our solar system) before humans (or life) even existed.
So, that information that you recited is from scientists. And about 98% of climate scientist agree that man made climate change exists...is it wise to believe the 2%?
Some are saying that the huge earthquake in Japan knocked the earth off its 'axis' or, something like that. This is why we've been having 'weird' weather patterns.
I think many are skeptical because many of these same scientists (not the actual persons, but the community) were decrying global cooling in the 70's and 80's. We are using temperature recordings going back to around 170 years ago - out of the 4.8 billion years of the earth's age. Yes, I'm aware of the CO2 evidence from core drilling and all that - I actually have undergraduate degrees in science and have been teaching it for 2 decades. And I do believe that we are a partial problem - but only a small part. I can't remember who it was that stated "the humans like to take on airs. One good volcano puts out more greenhouse gases than humans do...." (paraphrased).
It is arrogant presumption that we can cause the destruction of the climate. How in the world can we destroy something like the climate? How can we presume to control something that could throw us off like an annoying gnat? And even if we could, how could we know that we would be doing a good job? The climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth - and it will continue to change as the earth does thru aging, plate tectonics, etc. Isn't it kind of silly to think we could turn back time to when the climate was, what? Normal? What's normal? What's average? Do we try to keep it under constant conditions? How in the hell do we do that? That'd be like trying to stop the crustal plates from moving. The climate is a dynamic force that will still be going long after we have gone the way of the dodo.
Now don't get me wrong. We still have to do our job of keeping our world as clean as possible. We should find alternatives to fossil fuels - if only to find a new source when they become more scarce. We should keep our water clean, develop more recyclible materials, etc. But this will be very difficult to do with 7+ billion people on the planet needing more room, enegy, food, resources, etc. We should reduce emmissions, but to assume that if we don't we will "destroy the environment" is the height of arrogant presumption. Hell, we actually have been doing much better about it over the last several decades. Go back 100 years to Pittsburgh, Pa, look around and take a few deep breaths, then visit it today and compare. We have done better, but many of us are tired of the scare tactics, rhetoric, and the complete overuse of such superlatives like 'disaster' 'catastrophe' and the like from media sources whose sole purpose is to sensationalize every story to sell their wares.
So, that information that you recited is from scientists. And about 98% of climate scientist agree that man made climate change exists...is it wise to believe the 2%?
I do believe in warming caused by humans, but wanted to pinpoint the real disagreement. I also think that the scientific community doesn't understand the whole picture (yet) and they could change their mind once more in the future. One way or another, with almost 7 Billion humans this planet is overcrowded.
I don't need proof - that's why we have weather reports. The climate 'changes' all the time. Short cycle seasons, long cycle freeze thaws that have been fairly consistent at 100,000 year intervals. So what is your real point?
Climate data has only been consistently collected for about 150 years. So would any statisticians derive a full conclusion looking at such a small select sample? And again as another commentor pointed out they said we were entering a cold age in 70's. How long before the current prognosis is recalibrated?
And yes, I agree man through the built environment has impact (heat island effect etc..) but again statistically insignificant to anything the earth itself can do via Volcanos, etc....Again the whole 'climate' debate needs to be delineated to have a decent conversation.
Yes mankind should always strive for conservation and being good stewards of the environment, but that is different than the "Gaia worshipping as religion crowd". Larry Abraham's, The Greening is an interesting read to understand the political impetus behind much of the Gaia worship.
I bet 90-95 percent would all agree we need to limit our ecological footprint, replant what we harvest, conserve certain ecosystems etc... it just seems this is an issue that is purposely used to be divisive and to politicize and give reason to overarching central government control. I.E. > they realized long ago when you run out of some rallying enemy to rail against you need to create a new one for PR reasons to force behavioral conditioning of the masses through FEAR.
I think george Carlin sums up the 'hubris and sense' of this issue very well:
First off, I believe in climate change but I was wondering, if you don't believe in it then what proof do you need to know it is real? I mean, is it simply because the idea of it is offensive to you? The other thing too I find curious is that most people that don't believe it are conservatives. But, as a conservative, shouldn't we conserve the world we live in from being destroyed by the hand of man? Teddy Roosevelt was a republican and he conserved our lands by doubling the number of national parks in our country. Doesn't conservatism also equate to conservationism??
Empirical verification, validation, and independent replication (aka scientific process).
I don't doubt climate change. I doubt that we (man) have substantially altered the rate of the warming trend. Especially if, in the past, similar global heating events have transpired and transpired at the same rate they are happening now.
I think using climate change to spend tax dollars is one of the most disenguous uses for tax dollars that politicians have come up with, right up there with social security and welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
