Is Global Warming the most misunderstood topic in politics?

[monovillage]

Looked at your scary sea level numbers lately?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Sorry, it looks like another warmist exaggeration just bit the dust.

The fact is that there's been all sorts of scare tactics used and predictions made by the climate alarmists and they haven't happened. They don't have the science to back up the claims so they try to frighten people into throwing money and political power at a nonexistent problem. Prove there's a problem, prove that it's man-made, show if there's a solution. Then we can talk about taking steps, but I see no reason to destroy the economy of every industrialized nation in the world on a maybe/could be/might be/we dunno.

 

[piasabird]

The Mayans thought that the earth as part of the galaxy was in a 5,125 year cycle which ends and begins on 21 December 2012, and at the end of that cycle the sun would go through some sort of change that would renew both the Sun and the Earth as well as the Galazy. How do these puny scientist think they can predict the climate of the Earth? I think it is very small-minded of them. Sure the climate changes all the time, it has always changed. So what if it changes to warmer to colder? There is nothing Scientists can do about the climate changes because they are larger than they know.

http://www.hulu.com/playlist/180282

So this interesting show tries to link Global Warming, Myan Prophecies, and Crop Circles. I think the show is a bit on the fool goose bozo side, but Who knows? I tend not to give too much credence to people who think they can predict global warming as being the end of the world. None of them have really demonstrated any kind of verifyable proof that they know what they are talking about. It is obvious that the sun must affect the weather on the earth. Then also the earth may also vary its position relative to the sun and the sun relative to its position in the Galaxy, which we know very little about.

So do you really think that we have politicians who are smart enough to interpret any scientific data that may be available. We are not really sure what stopped the last ice age!

 

[monovillage]

For those wanting to know more about land-use impacts here's a good paper and site.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ional-evidence-has-been-officially-published/

"For those who claim that CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases dominate the human influence on climate, this paper refutes that view."

 

[Nebor]

Not likely to impact my life in my lifetime, so I don't care.

 

[Whiskey16]

Until then anyone subscribing to the cult is an opponent to be attacked.

As a theme of this thread, for those with common sense and an awareness of reality, irrationally raging ideologues are so easy to shut down:

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.

All too easy:

But a one-degree Celsius rise in the temperature of the North Atlantic over the past century has boosted the air temperature in the south of Greenland by about three degrees.

Although potatoes have been produced for some time, climate change has created a 'growing window' during the summer months just long enough to allow the cultivation of vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and carrots.

..

Winter is coming later and leaving earlier. That means there is more time to leave sheep in the mountains, more time to grow crops, more time to work outdoors and more opportunity to travel by boat, since the fjords freeze later and less frequently.

Ewes are having fatter lambs, and more of them every season. The growing season, such as it is, now lasts roughly from mid-May through to mid-September, about three weeks longer than a decade ago.

"Now spring is coming earlier, and you can have earlier lambings and longer grazing periods," said Eenoraq Frederiksen, 68, a sheep farmer whose farm, near Qassiarsuk, is accessible by a harrowing drive across a rudimentary road ploughed in the hillside. "Young people now have a lot of possibilities for the future."

Broccoli and cauliflower can be planted in Greenland from early May, and then harvested in August. In the past, May would be too frosty for growing and anything planted in June would not have enough time to grow.

 

[NeoV]

a few thoughts - Mono village idiot has pretty much become the poster-boy for the denier crowd btw

I completely agree with people who say we should not ruin our economy to try and 'fix' this problem. In fact, the entire discussion about global warming should be on the 'what can we do/what should we do/what can we afford to do' portion - because quite frankly the science is pretty much settled.

The problem with the deniers, though - is they don't believe man has any impact on the climate - because:

A - Al Gore's name is often associated with it
B - Sean Hannity is in Iowa - it's snowing in Iowa - therefore it's can't be real
C - it's not cool for a conservative thinker to admit it might be real
D - they don't like the carbon tax discussion

So we have alarmists on both sides (Holy crap Florida is going to be underwater in 5 years) and (We've spent 8 trillion dollars on this already and we can't fix it!) - both of whom are collectively a bunch of morons.

Any idiot can put up a link to an article and say - see - I told you it IS/ISN'T real.

That said - real scientists - and even independent studies of climate models - yes, even the 'hockey stick' graphs - have all be shown to be accurate -even when funded by people hoping for the opposite to be true.

It's not tin-foil hat stuff, it's basic physics.

Spidey - still quoting 'climate-gate' as proof of some hidden agenda? Pathetic.

Nemesis - the entire solar system is undergoing climate change? Did you observe that on your last visit to Jupiter, to check on your 'massive' comet that going to end things?

In fact - I'm going to declare that this is my last post in a global warm thread - the sheer ignorance of people - on both sides of the fence - but in particular the likes of Spidey/Mono/Jaskalas - who keep spouting the same debunked 'evidence' that they are right and 99.9% of the climate-scientists are wrong (or whatever the exact percentage is before you jump all over me for 'hiding the percentage') - the only people more pathetic are the morons here who think 9/11 was a massive inside job, that a missile hit the pentagon, and that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosive charges...


excellent article pointed out to me today:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/19/conservatives-and-climate-change/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/19/conservatives-and-climate-change-part-two/

be sure to read both parts, good reading

 

[monovillage]

So you post a link to a commentary site instead of peer reviewed papers from climate scientists like I do? You're a political tool and just further proof that to you climate change is all about money and power, not the science.

 

[monovillage]

a few thoughts................................

Nemesis - the entire solar system is undergoing climate change? Did you observe that on your last visit to Jupiter, to check on your 'massive' comet that going to end things?
........................

It could be (I have no idea if he was) that nemesis was talking about this recent PNAS paper about temperatures on Mars.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/26/1109444108.abstract

but, I doubt if you'd know about it. You paid for it, try reading it.

 

[IGBT]

it's eco-KOOK alarmism resulting in the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known. It's also profound evidence that so called "environmentalists" have no business in the public policy loop and need to be removed and classified "sick".

 

[janas19]

Looked at your scary sea level numbers lately?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Sorry, it looks like another warmist exaggeration just bit the dust.

The fact is that there's been all sorts of scare tactics used and predictions made by the climate alarmists and they haven't happened. They don't have the science to back up the claims so they try to frighten people into throwing money and political power at a nonexistent problem. Prove there's a problem, prove that it's man-made, show if there's a solution. Then we can talk about taking steps, but I see no reason to destroy the economy of every industrialized nation in the world on a maybe/could be/might be/we dunno.

As a matter of fact, global warming is common sense. Millions of years ago there were no icy poles and most land areas were tropical. Plants absorbed massive amounts of carbon dioxide over millions of years and this cooled the atmosphere down. Now when we burn fossil fuels, we release the carbon back into the air and this causes gradual warming.

Which part of this don't you understand?

 

[janas19]

it's eco-KOOK alarmism resulting in the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known. It's also profound evidence that so called "environmentalists" have no business in the public policy loop and need to be removed and classified "sick".

Speak of the devil, you sound like a bona fide kook yourself. "Environmentalists need to be removed from public policy." Lol. Right, because depleting natural resources benefits us all.

If we ran the nation according to that idea, we'd be extinct in 50 years.

 

[monovillage]

As a matter of fact, global warming is common sense. Millions of years ago there were no icy poles and most land areas were tropical. Plants absorbed massive amounts of carbon dioxide over millions of years and this cooled the atmosphere down. Now when we burn fossil fuels, we release the carbon back into the air and this causes gradual warming.

Which part of this don't you understand?

Great thinking............ you are kidding right? because I certainly am.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/28/evaluative-premises/#more-6363

In Dr. Judith Curry's post about Evaluative premises she writes.

"With regards to “This alone shows that global warmists are biased.” Back in 1992, the UNFCCC framed the entire issue of AGW in the context of dangerous climate change, which evolved into a charge for the IPCC (WGII) to identify the dangerous impacts. The NIPCC countered by focusing on positive impacts. I’ve stated before that the the UNFCCC put the policy cart before the scientific horse; recall that the conclusion from the IPCC FAR in 1990 was: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.”


Take a look at the post, take a look at the site, learn something for a change.

 

[janas19]

Great thinking............ you are kidding right? because I certainly am.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/28/evaluative-premises/#more-6363

In Dr. Judith Curry's post about Evaluative premises she writes.

"With regards to ?This alone shows that global warmists are biased.? Back in 1992, the UNFCCC framed the entire issue of AGW in the context of dangerous climate change, which evolved into a charge for the IPCC (WGII) to identify the dangerous impacts. The NIPCC countered by focusing on positive impacts. I?ve stated before that the the UNFCCC put the policy cart before the scientific horse; recall that the conclusion from the IPCC FAR in 1990 was: ?The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.?


Take a look at the post, take a look at the site, learn something for a change.

Ok, so what. That doesn't change one single thing about anything said here. *eye roll*

 

[dmcowen674]

Is Global Warming the most misunderstood topic in politics?

There is nothing "misunderstood".

Rich Republicans profit from it so it must be protected at all costs.

Same as their oil profits in the Middle East.

 

[Patranus]

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?

Its a tool to force social justice.

Its just like when politicians do things "for the kids". Everyone loves kids so we must do it.

Likewise it is really easy for a politician to say its "for the earth" and have everyone follow them over a cliff.

 

[Patranus]

There is nothing "misunderstood".

Rich Republicans profit from it so it must be protected at all costs.

Same as their oil profits in the Middle East.

And who do you think invested a ton of money in carbon exchange?

 

[Throckmorton]

Question for the people who think CO2 isn't the cause of the current warming... What do you think is happening to the additional heat trapped by CO2? Is it magically vanishing? If so, how is the earth destroying energy when energy can't be created or destroyed?

Put on a jacket.

Feel warmer because you're losing less heat.

Then say, "I'm warmer but it's not because of the jacket".

That's exactly what you are doing when you say the current warming is natural and not due to CO2.

 

[Patranus]

Question for the people who think CO2 isn't the cause of the current warming... What do you think is happening to the additional heat trapped by CO2? Is it magically vanishing? If so, how is the earth destroying energy when energy can't be created or destroyed?

Put on a jacket.

Feel warmer because you're losing less heat.

Then say, "I'm warmer but it's not because of the jacket".

That's exactly what you are doing when you say the current warming is natural and not due to CO2.

Your (flawed) assumption is that the amount of CO2 is significantly increasing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

 

[janas19]

Your (flawed) assumption is that the amount of CO2 is significantly increasing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

Which actually isn't flawed

 

[Nebor]

Why not just pump sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight and cool the earth? We know it works, it's easy to do and it's way cheaper than all these "green" efforts.

 

[Patranus]

Ill leave everyone here with this.

 

[Tangerines]

The amount of ignorance here is astounding. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees that:

- The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
- This is primarily due to human factors
- This is causing the earth to warm

People talking about "the natural cycle of the earth" or whatever are totally talking out of their ass. Go to any Geological Sciences or AOSS department at any respectable university saying what people are saying here and you would be laughed out. It is clear that pretty much everyone in this thread dissing global warming does not work as a climatologist, probably does not work in a scientific field, and definitely has no idea what they're talking about. There are a lot of issues in politics based on subjectivity and ideas of morality (abortion, etc). The issue of global warming is not one of them. It exists, and although there is some debate about how much warming there will be, projections, etc., no scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the science behind global warming. It is a manufactured controversy.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

Because it is anything but a "simple issue". It is an absurdly complicated issue that I doubt a single person on this board understands enough to adequately explain it to anyone else. It spans multiple specialties in science and math that most of us barely have a basic understanding of.

Unfortunately, the problem is not the science it is the politics. Once politics gets involved in science the science tends to (from the perspective of public understanding) gets all fucked up.

I would wager that 95% of the people on both sides of the issue have no clue what they are talking about. Personally, I leave the science up to the scientists and until they prove themselves wrong (like science does) that the earth is indeed warming. What to do about it is an entirely different conversation altogether.

 

[Darwin333]

Ill leave everyone here with this.

Do you also disagree with every other thing that science has corrected, modified, or added to since 1979? The list is quite long.

 

[Darwin333]

And who do you think invested a ton of money in carbon exchange?

So some people found a problem and then found a way to profit off of it. Isn't that Capitalism? I will grant you that their word about the problem should be taken with a grain of salt but I think we are beyond that point now.