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.
I am skeptical about the sudden claim that a global warming problem exists
The reason I only quoted those words is because they say volumes.
2 words specifically ... "sudden claim"
So apparently you never heard of Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist. In 1896 he wrote about global warming from fossil fuel and calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
I'm guessing you also missed reading about Thomas Chamberlin in school. In 1897 he wrote a book about the effects of CO2 on the Earth's temperature and climate change.
Then there was Stephen Schneider in the 1950s and Charles Keeling in the 1960s..but you get my point.
Also, what is called the Greenhouse Effect is not only real, but essential for our existence. However, we have accelerated it by using gasoline engines for so many years. We've also cut down too many trees which we need to balance oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the air.
So when I hear people say that Global Warming is new, political, doesn't exisit or deny there is a Greenhouse Effect, I want to hit them over the head with an encyclopedia. There is no question Global Warming is real and inevitable as the planet ages. The big puzzle is understanding the effect we humans have on it and what we can do to slow it down (or keep from accelerating it) by changing our habits.
Last edited by justNancy; 04-25-2009 at 01:58 AM..
Reason: reworded sentence
The VAST majority of climate scientists say differently. If you look hard enough, you can always find a dissenting opinion. Considering what's at stake, it's stupid--and intellectually dishonest--to choose to listen to only one voice just because that voice satisfies one's own belief system.
From the wiki entry on Lindzen:
Lindzen was one of several scientists who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that aired in the UK in March, 2007 on Channel 4. The film was critical of the IPCC and many scientific opinions on climate change. The film has been criticized for misuse of data and out of date research, for using misleading arguments, and for misrepresenting the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The vast majority of climate scientists stand to make a whole lot more money by claiming man made climate change is destroying the planet than by not. Thing is it is getting colder and has been for a couple years now. That's why we call it climate change today instead of global warming. The first lie ran its course and now we're on to the second lie. I'm quite sure another one is waiting in the wings. Bored hippies grew up and became greedy capitalists who want to sell us carbon credits. Theodore Kaczynski must be so excited about our future living in carbon-neutral log cabins without heat, electricity or indoor plumbing.
First of all, nobody's trying to "destroy" anybody. Don't be a drama queen.
Second, nobody's "afraid" to debate him. His position has already been debunked by the worldwide scientific community. Holding a "debate" with this person would be equal to holding a "debate" about Obama's place of birth.
Third, there is no "debate" over climate change. Ten years ago, yes. Now, no. And, unless you're a climate scientist, you don't have the intellectual capital to declare that the science is not "rigorous enough."
Fourth, if Gore is "lying" or "hiding other agendas," then so are the majority of other climate scientists across the globe. Must be an international conspiracy, I guess. An enormous, secret, GLOBAL, "liberal" plan to take money from the wealth through cap-and-trade.
People who live in the dark ages about climate change need to educate themselves on the issue. This isn't a game. And it certainly isn't a partisan issue (unless you're claiming that scientists the world over are in secret league with American "liberals"). This is the most serious issue in the history of humanity. I know you don't want to believe that. In fact, apparently, it is simply too large a threat for you to believe. Understandable. Back in Galileo's day, the majority of the populace (not to mention the Pope) thought he, was well, was not only "lying," but had an anti-God "agenda." In general, the people who are climate skeptics are people who've never made a good faith effort to truly understand the issues. They take their "information" from right-wing political pundits and blogs, preferring to wrap themselves in the cloak of ignorance and denial, rather than confront the facts and have their whole world view fall apart.
Don't need a conspiracy when they all get paid individually for singin' the same tune. Follow the money.
The reason I only quoted those words is because they say volumes about you.
2 words specifically ... "sudden claim"
So apparently you never heard of Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist. In 1896 he wrote about global warming from fossil fuel and calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
I'm guessing you also missed reading about Thomas Chamberlin in school. In 1897 he wrote a book about the effects of CO2 on the Earth's temperature and climate change.
Then there was Stephen Schneider in the 1950s and Charles Keeling in the 1960s..but you get my point.
Also, what is called the Greenhouse Effect is not only real, but essential for our existence. However, we have accelerated it by using gasoline engines for so many years. We've also cut down too many trees which we need to balance oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the air.
So when I hear people say that Global Warming is new, political, doesn't exisit or deny there is a Greenhouse Effect, I want to hit them over the head with an encyclopedia. There is no question Global Warming is real and inevitable as the planet ages. The big puzzle is understanding the effect we humans have on it and if there's anything we can do to slow it down.
To me the claim is "sudden" because like most 40 somethings in America I grew up in grade school, high school and college being taught we were heading for the next Ice Age. I still remember the "In Search of..." episode where Nimoy intoned "Could it be we are headed to the next ice age in our lifetime? Could it be...." and my busheyed biology professor in Virginia in the mid-80's swearing up and down Richmond would be beachfront property by 2050 as ocean displacement caused by advancing glacial ice would raise the sea level 3-10 feet at the minimum. Then at some point in the early to mid 90's there started to be a drumbeat about "Global Warming". Around 1999-2000 it really broke out into mainstream awareness.
Global warming in isolation isn't the issue. The issue is can we do anything to effect global climate change. Some say yes and that we have too reorder our entire way of life to do so - or else. Others say no. I honestly don't know.
I do know the people on the yes side aren't open to discussion, unfairly attack those on the other side of the issue, dismiss obvious & immediate on hand solutions (nukes) to a problem they claim is critical and advance a series of solutions that neatly dovetails with the political, economic and societal agendas they were advancing prior to public awareness of the problem.
I am open to the possibilities but until I can find science that sounds like science and not a religon from a source I trust - which at this point isn't any of the mainstream envriomental organizations a laymen like me would normally look to for information - I'll hold off on buying into reordering our whole way of life.
Right now I'd rather we find a cure for cancer, AIDS and feed all the hungry children. I wish we could stop diseases like malaria. Every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria. We need to learn more about the causes of autism.
Still, it doesn't mean we can't be aware of wasteful consumption and pollutants that might accelerate global warming. In my last post I probably sounded like a strong advocate for action to stop global warming. I'm not. We need to do something about the pollution from power plants and cars and learn to be more energy efficient. However, I use very little energy, so I'm not going to change my life while millionaires fly around in private jets.
Yes, it's pathetic. The natural course is the earth was entering a cooling period and those in charge knew this. By implementing meaningless carbon caps and trading, which generate huge earning for them, they will come out looking brilliant. Approximately every 100 years the sun goes through a stabilizing period, we're in that period now, hence the major lack of sunspot activity.
Do the research for yourself, don't listen to what is pushed down your throat!
Right now I'd rather we find a cure for cancer, AIDS and feed all the hungry children. I wish we could stop diseases like malaria. Every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria. We need to learn more about the causes of autism.
Agreed. And not to contnue to wail on enviromentalists, but don't even get me started on the whole DDT/3rd world malaria thing. GRRRRRRRRRR. My sons and I just donated money for 10 Mosquito nets for Uganda at our church .
Still, it doesn't mean we can't be aware of wasteful consumption and pollutants that might accelerate global warming.
I agree as well. Its why my family has a Minivan (avg mpg 20) in stead of a much "cooler" Big Suv (MPG 14) and I drive a Honda Accord instead of one of the fancier but more inefficent Euro-sedans I was lusting after when it was time to buy a car.
In my last post I probably sounded like a strong advocate for action to stop global warming. I'm not. We need to do something about the pollution from power plants and cars and learn to be more energy efficient.
Agree again. I'm for energy conservation as a competitive advantage for the US in the world marketplace and the reduction of oil consumption for nat'l security purposes, so even if we did'nt go down the same path I think we are both trying to get to the same destination.
However, I use very little energy, so I'm not going to change my life while millionaires fly around in private jets.
FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Prince*ton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars.....
......Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.” Dyson — a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten.........
So the question is this, if a man with intelligence like Dyson's which is far beyond that of even the average scientist is skeptical about the models being used by the IPCC shouldn't you be?
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.
