Is Global Warming the most misunderstood topic in politics?

[JMapleton]

There is a lot of debate about global warming. Some people dismiss it, others think it's a serious issue.

However there is one thing I think the anti-global warming advocates are missing.

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS

Global warming does exist. That is a proven scientific fact.

What people are debating is whether or not human actions are causing global warming or if it's just a natural swing in temperature change (which the Earth is known to do).

Most people know so little about the topic, instead blindly jumping on political bandwagons lead by the ignorant, and they in turn get their opinion so mixed up that they end up taking a political stance that doesn't exist (disputing global warming itself) and this then catches on to other people and then ignorance spreads.

Why cannot people understand this simple issue?

 

[IronWing]

Mass media killed the Enlightenment. News at eleven.

 

[micrometers]

I think it is fairly obvious that global warming is man-made. It is simple logic. Increased CO2 emissions will change the climate.

most skeptics have an selfish agenda behind their skepticism. They aren't motivated by science or pursuit of the truth.

 

[spidey07]

Global warming does not exist. The earth goes through cycles of warm and cool. That's why they had to stop calling it global warming and moved to "climate change".

"hide the decline..."

 

[SilthDraeth]

What Spidey said. The earth has had 3 ice ages at least, and periods of warming up and tropical weather etc inbetween.

Considering we are living after an ice age, it only makes sense that the earth would be warming up, and eventually we will go into another ice age.

 

[monovillage]

I think it is fairly obvious that global warming is man-made. It is simple logic. Increased CO2 emissions will change the climate.

most skeptics have an selfish agenda behind their skepticism. They aren't motivated by science or pursuit of the truth.

I think it is fairly obvious that global warming is naturally occurring. It's simple logic. Increased CO2 emissions won't change the climate.

Most alarmists are stupid and ugly and have a political agenda behind their alarmist fantasies. They aren't motivated by science or pursuit of the truth.

 

[sandorski]

Not misunderstood, but most(seems like anyways) misconstrued/obfuscated issue of this time.

 

[sandorski]

I think it is fairly obvious that global warming is naturally occurring. It's simple logic. Increased CO2 emissions won't change the climate.

Most alarmists are stupid and ugly and have a political agenda behind their alarmist fantasies. They aren't motivated by science or pursuit of the truth.

Incorrect.

 

[DrPizza]

Sure, the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Hypothesis: it's part of a natural cycle. Now, what would be causing the natural cycles? Variations in solar output. So, check the solar output, observe the warming as seen on other planets, see if it applies to Earth. Conclusion: solar cycles are insufficient to explain the current warming trend.

So, those who dispute manmade global warming: the burden is on YOU to give an alternate explanation. "Natural cycle" Bullshit - something drives natural cycles, the question to you is WHAT?

 

[spidey07]

Sure, the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Hypothesis: it's part of a natural cycle. Now, what would be causing the natural cycles? Variations in solar output. So, check the solar output, observe the warming as seen on other planets, see if it applies to Earth. Conclusion: solar cycles are insufficient to explain the current warming trend.

So, those who dispute manmade global warming: the burden is on YOU to give an alternate explanation. "Natural cycle" Bullshit - something drives natural cycles, the question to you is WHAT?

Water cycle and water vapor along with geothermal.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Sure, the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Hypothesis: it's part of a natural cycle. Now, what would be causing the natural cycles? Variations in solar output. So, check the solar output, observe the warming as seen on other planets, see if it applies to Earth. Conclusion: solar cycles are insufficient to explain the current warming trend.

So, those who dispute manmade global warming: the burden is on YOU to give an alternate explanation. "Natural cycle" Bullshit - something drives natural cycles, the question to you is WHAT?

It isn't just variations of solar output. The earth also has a magnetic core that isn't exactly stable.

The field has reversed at different times in history, and the field itself affects climate.

I am not dismissing that man has an affect on the climate, hell I believe it is pretty common knowledge that cloud seeding occurs, and that affects climate on a local level. And at least as far as weather is concerned, nothing is truly local. Small changes here, and there, can cause changes elsewhere.

So, well I believe the primary reasons for climate shifts, and change is natural events, I also hold that humans are inadvertently affecting the natural state of the climate. And some humans are messing with the climate on purpose.

 

[Nemesis 1]

To some it maybe . But the entire solar system is going threw a change . I suppose a new age is the best explaination

 

[micrometers]

I think it is fairly obvious that global warming is naturally occurring. It's simple logic. Increased CO2 emissions won't change the climate.

Most alarmists are stupid and ugly and have a political agenda behind their alarmist fantasies. They aren't motivated by science or pursuit of the truth.

Yes CO2 emissions change it since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, there are natural cycles, but increased CO2 emissions will still alter temperatures within the natural cycle.

There is scientific consensus that global warming is happening. The people who are "skeptics" tend to not be scientists and have not devoted serious study to the topic. Instead, they have other motivations, not factually based.

 

[monovillage]

Sure, the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Hypothesis: it's part of a natural cycle. Now, what would be causing the natural cycles? Variations in solar output. So, check the solar output, observe the warming as seen on other planets, see if it applies to Earth. Conclusion: solar cycles are insufficient to explain the current warming trend.

So, those who dispute manmade global warming: the burden is on YOU to give an alternate explanation. "Natural cycle" Bullshit - something drives natural cycles, the question to you is WHAT?

Sorry, when the Alarmists can prove that global warming and/or climate change is mainly caused by human activity and can be stopped at a reasonable cost then you might have a point, but until the Alarmists can prove their case why should trillions of dollars be spent and economies ruined without that evidence?

 

[micrometers]

Sorry, when the Alarmists can prove that global warming and/or climate change is mainly caused by human activity and can be stopped at a reasonable cost then you might have a point, but until the Alarmists can prove their case why should trillions of dollars be spent and economies ruined without that evidence?

1. better safe than sorry.

2. it can be done for cheaper than you think.

For instance, I know a mechanical engineer. He says that coal power plants could have better pollution controls easily. Yes, it would cost some bit more, but do you know where the money goes to? It goes to an engineering firm. But of course it doesn't happen b/c they aren't forced to.

 

[monovillage]

Yes CO2 emissions change it since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, there are natural cycles, but increased CO2 emissions will still alter temperatures within the natural cycle.

There is scientific consensus that global warming is happening. The people who are "skeptics" tend to not be scientists and have not devoted serious study to the topic. Instead, they have other motivations, not factually based.

There is no scientific consensus. Take a look at this post by Dr. Judith Curry about manufacturing consensus.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/

In fact spend a lot of time at Dr. Curry's site.

 

[monovillage]

1. better safe than sorry.

2. it can be done for cheaper than you think.

For instance, I know a mechanical engineer. He says that coal power plants could have better pollution controls easily. Yes, it would cost some bit more, but do you know where the money goes to? It goes to an engineering firm. But of course it doesn't happen b/c they aren't forced to.

"better safe then sorry"

wow! i'm devastated by your cogent scientific argument about something that has already cost the U.S. billions of dollars.

 

[micrometers]

"better safe then sorry"

wow! i'm devastated by your cogent scientific argument about something that has already cost the U.S. billions of dollars.

and I said that it can be done cheaper than you think and that much of any additional cost would likely be captured and translated into economic activity by US manuf. firms.

as for "skeptics" I'm sure that they focus more on conclusions than methodology.

 

[shira]

There is a lot of debate about global warming. Some people dismiss it, others think it's a serious issue.

However there is one thing I think the anti-global warming advocates are missing.

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS

Global warming does exist. That is a proven scientific fact.

What people are debating is whether or not human actions are causing global warming or if it's just a natural swing in temperature change (which the Earth is known to do).

Most people know so little about the topic, instead blindly jumping on political bandwagons lead by the ignorant, and they in turn get their opinion so mixed up that they end up taking a political stance that doesn't exist (disputing global warming itself) and this then catches on to other people and then ignorance spreads.

Why cannot people understand this simple issue?

Worldwide, the overwhelming consensus among climatologists - not politicians, not the fossil fuel industry, not companies with a vested interest in discrediting manmade climate change - is that manmade climate change is real and so significant that immediate and aggressive mitigating action by mankind is needed

But ask the right-wing hoardes on ATPN; they know better. They know more than climatologists. They can provide all sorts of anti-MMCC "evidence." They would have us believe that thousands of scientists doing active research in the field of climatology are all either overlooking or suppressing this powerful evidence in order to continue to drive the pro-MMCC hoax. The overwhelming weight of pro-MMCC evidence is irrelevant to the ATPN anti-MMCC hoardes. Because any study that supports MMCC is just part of the conspiracy. It's all fabricated data driven by billions of dollars (from unknown sources) in pro-MMCC money. And what of the deafening LACK of anti-MMCC evidence produced by all the money spent by the fossil fuel industry to support anti-MMCC studies? Oh, that doesn't matter. Ya just gotta believe.

MMCC isn't misunderstood at all if you spend 10 minutes with an open mind on the web, demanding peer-reviewed results, not conspiracy theories.

 

[JMapleton]

Global warming does not exist. The earth goes through cycles of warm and cool. That's why they had to stop calling it global warming and moved to "climate change".

"hide the decline..."

You're missing my point, read my post.

Global warming DOES exist. You're even admitting it. However you're saying the changes are not man made. I respect that opinion.

But do not say global warming does not exist because the Earth is warming.

Say global warming is not man made. It's people like you who I am referring to in my OP and you are confusing the ignorant and vulnerable.

 

[JMapleton]

"better safe then sorry"

wow! i'm devastated by your cogent scientific argument about something that has already cost the U.S. billions of dollars.

I was trying to remain neutral in this thread but....

His argument is perfectly logical.

It's clear no one can clearly prove 100% without a doubt one way or another. You cannot prove 100% it's a natural occurance. If you could you would be famous and wealthy for it, but you cannot. He cannot prove 100% it's man made either.

Either way, we are dealing with a leap of faith on either side.

His logic? (and mine)

FACT: There is a possibility that these changes are man made. Any reasonable minded person can agree with that because none of us know the truth.

Why not do small things to curb CO2 emissions and for the benefit of the doubt, attempting to stop Global Warming? Why not spend say, a trillion dollars, which worldwide is a very small amount (for all countries combined) to maybe stop or slow down Global Warming?

Because if YOU are wrong and Global Warming is indeed man made, and we continue on the path we are going, the results in 100 years or less could be catastrophic. The rise of sea levels will almost certainly displace hundreds of millions of people and cause tens of trillions in economic (in today's dollars) devastation.

Why not spend money on making clean energy now so we don't have to spend money on pumps and sea walls decades from now? Why run such a huge risk?

When the stakes are this high, it's ignorant not to just take the safe route.

Because no matter how much you believe Global Warming is not a man made process, there is still some evidence indicating it is, even if it's not 100% conclusive evidence.

We cannot run such a huge risk.

This same logic I think should apply to other environmental issues such as many pesticides and other chemicals sprayed in plants, which many think are contributing to CCD, something a lot scarier than Global Warming.

It's better to take the safe route instead of the arrogant one.

 

[JMapleton]

MMCC isn't misunderstood at all if you spend 10 minutes with an open mind on the web, demanding peer-reviewed results, not conspiracy theories.

I agree with you 100%, but among common people it's terribly misunderstood. Most people are questioning the existence of Global Warming itself! They're so confused, they say things like "Global Warming does not exist!" when in fact no one is even debating such a thing!

We're debating what's causing it, not whether or not it exists! It exists! Only the ignorant would think otherwise.

 

[janas19]

There are 2 types of people in the global warming denial camp. The first are a motley crew of right-wing extremists and the corporate profiteer types who actually stand to benefit by denying global warming because it will put more money and power in their pockets. The second type are working-class people who will not benefit monetarily at all from denying global warming, yet they do it anyways because they are low-class simpletons and tools who were taught since childhood to bow to authority and tow the party line.

Monovillage is obviously the second type.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is Global Warming the most misunderstood topic in politics?

*yawn

Call me when you can FARM in Greenland again. Only then will the blithering idiots have a minutia of truth to the climate being warm. Until then anyone subscribing to the cult is an opponent to be attacked.

CO2 is no threat, our freedoms and liberties need not be assaulted on that damned notion. Carbon taxes can go to hell.

 

[monovillage]

There are 2 types of people in the global warming denial camp. The first are a motley crew of right-wing extremists and the corporate profiteer types who actually stand to benefit by denying global warming because it will put more money and power in their pockets. The second type are working-class people who will not benefit monetarily at all from denying global warming, yet they do it anyways because they are low-class simpletons and tools who were taught since childhood to bow to authority and tow the party line.

Monovillage is obviously the second type.

It's toe the party line you dummy.
That's not the only thing you're wrong about.