View Full Version : The underdogs' view
I personally believe humans are mostly to blame for global warming, especially after seeing An Inconvenient Truth. Annoying as it was, it was educating.
However, my friend had to do a report for college on global warming, and he chose to do it about how humans supposedly have had actually very little effect on it at all, and it's just a natural occurance. He said that it's happened before.
I still don't buy it, but I was wondering how valid it is. I think it's always a good idea to check out the less trendy opinion. It seems lots of people are getting money/power from this crisis. Educate me.
it's not an opinion. there are no opinions in this. there is no "trendy" ideas.
there is the truth, backed by evidence with the full support of the vast majority of professionals in the field.
and then there is a stupid lie founded by idiots. conspiracy theorys hold need at least a fraction of evidence. theorys that almost every climate scientist on earth is being paid off for the gain of (who?) needs huge evidence.
deus-redux
2007-04-09, 09:54
there is the truth, backed by evidence with the full support of the vast majority of professionals in the field.
There is still some doubt as to whether CO2 is the main cause of global warming.
However, that doesn't mean we should not act to reduce our emissions. As I've said elsewhere, we need to move away from fossil fuels anyway.
What people CAN'T deny is that something is causing a global temperature rise. To say, "global warming is bullshit," is just retarded.
And even doubting CO2, there's still nitrate and sulphate emmissions to consider, which we're very sure cause acid rain.
But at the moment, the mass of evidence does lean towards CO2 causing global warming. As SOTB said, however, science does not stand still.
-deus-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
to cite:
"The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I
On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", are over 90% and 66% respectively.
so this report states they are 90% sure that global warming is the fault of human activity.
that is good enough for me, and considering they tend to be conservative in these things, it should be good enough for anyone, unless they know something everyone else doesn't.
What I deny is that it's worth even trying to stop. The cost of just dealing with it(global warming) will be far less than the cost of trying to reverse it.
deus-redux
2007-04-10, 21:37
What I deny is that it's worth even trying to stop. The cost of just dealing with it(global warming) will be far less than the cost of trying to reverse it.
How do you plan to cool down the entire planet again?
-deus-
How do you plan to cool down the entire planet again?
-deus-
Drop giant ice cubes in the oceans. Done.
it's not an opinion. there are no opinions in this. there is no "trendy" ideas.
there is the truth, backed by evidence with the full support of the vast majority of professionals in the field.
and then there is a stupid lie founded by idiots. conspiracy theorys hold need at least a fraction of evidence. theorys that almost every climate scientist on earth is being paid off for the gain of (who?) needs huge evidence.
For someone who's majoring in science, you are very mistaken.
Science is FULL of opinions. By itself, Science should be objective. However, due to the overwhelming complexity of many issues, it ends up being what Scientists guess.
It doesn't need to be a huge conspiracy. Scientists get paid for results. Scientists also need money to live. If they had a huge amount of data, too much to get any conclusions from, but they would get attention (and moolah) from hopping on the bandwagon, every scientist would. They're not bad, they just know they can benefit.
it's almost impossible to say whether or not human CO2 is causing the current change in climate.
Just because there is a general scientific consesus that it is doesn't mean it's true, up to only a few 100 years ago the consesus was that the world was flat, a few spoke out, and now we know it's round. Same with that diseases like cholera were water born diseases instead of caused by 'miasma'.
It's impossible to say whether or not it is true and we will truely never know.
i am undecided but i fully believe that we should not take the chance that we haven't caused it and we should act.
Prometheus
2007-04-18, 20:36
Here's a quote I just came across today:
Of course, many people claim not to be convinced by this so-called climate change evidence. That is because they are shortsighted sociopathic morons who don't want to lose any money.
-Bruce Sterling
1998
it's almost impossible to say whether or not human CO2 is causing the current change in climate.
no its not, and no one thought the world was flat 100 years ago. we figured that one out about 400 years ago. it's not hard to prove.
but that's not the point. we believed the earth was flat because of the bible. we believed in random biological systems because we didn't know any better. there was never anything at all supporting these theory's. the church couldn't show the world was flat, people just believed it. just as greek physicians could not prove humorism.
that is just people believing bullshit because they don't know any better and it sounds good.
but with this, we can show the earth is heating up from our emissions. we can sit there, running computer simulations that show the effect we have on the atmosphere. it isn't a guess, it is something that has been proven from scratch.
but there is a big thing in the US it seems to doubt any science. most people believe evolution isn't founded in fact (i think it was like 70%). global warming is a "grey area". psychology is a sham. i am amazed that such an advanced nation has so many people who cannot grasp simple concepts. people who doubt the most accepted and proven ideas with stupid comments like "no one can really say that x".
if you have a reason to doubt the ideas, then great (in reference to Graah). if you look at the information and say 'i believe humans are not effecting global warming because of solar activity', then that is acceptable. that is not an opinion based on a whim, it is a justifiable position. evidence is often lacking, and models need to be fit that best explain it.
like the periodic table. many people worked a very long time trying to classify elements. there were many attempts that fit the current data, but when a new element was discovered that didn't fit then the model was scrapped. it wasn't people saying "i think your wrong because you don't know everything", it was people saying "your model is wrong because it doesn't incorporate noble gasses". eventually they found one that fit all data, and even correctly predicted the properties of undiscovered elements. the longer it was used the more it was proven correct and now it is just taken as fact.
people here say all sorts of random stuff with little to (and usually) no basis in fact. for someone with no understanding of global warming to say "i don't think it's real" is just the height of arrogance. to imply without even a basic grasp on the ideas that you can make a value judgement, in contrary to the proven and accepted ideas that you know better is just fucked up. if someone doesn't believe in global warming, post why, civilly and most people here will be happy to discuss it. post a stupid statement and you'll get flamed.
scientists don't get paid for results. if someone pays me to find a better way to make an organic chemical, i get paid either way. sure, ill get a nice bonus if i find a really great way, but that's not the point. if i claim to find a way, (and assuming that the employer is stupid and doesn't have the method checked) and it totally fails, i get sued and perhaps locked up.
scientists don't get paid for answers, this isn't middle management bullshit, they get paid to be right. if the data says that there is no way to get a better method, then you hand over the data, explain it and they say thank you and give you your hundred thousand dollars. if i just guess and the plant blows up then I'm fucked.
and it appears the only scientists who gain any kind of recognition are the incredibly brilliant or the crackpots. the same goes for money. the whole unscrupulous scientist who just rushes out an answer doesn't happen, especially not in areas like climate change where every single piece of data is going to be examined in detail by thousands of other scientists, who will make a name for themselves if they can prove it wrong. if there was a massive flaw in IPCC report, how many hours would it take to be discovered? i bet about two.
while im at it, i may as well answer the original question properly. your mate is referring to the medieval warm period. for a while around 1500 the earth did heat up for a couple of centuraries. this is a well known phenomenom, and well documented. the problem is, the warming we are experiencing now is far greater. it is hotter now than it was then, and the rate of heating is far greater. natural cycles happen, but it is hotter now, with higher carbon dioxide levels than it has been for the past 700'000 years. what we are experiencing now is completely unprecedented in modern earth history.
this is probably a bit too long, but it's a few things i had wanted to mention.
no its not, and no one thought the world was flat 100 years ago. we figured that one out about 400 years ago. it's not hard to prove.
i never said 100 years, i said a few 100 years, and a few is between 3-5
people here say all sorts of random stuff with little to (and usually) no basis in fact. for someone with no understanding of global warming to say "i don't think it's real" is just the height of arrogance. to imply without even a basic grasp on the ideas that you can make a value judgement, in contrary to the proven and accepted ideas that you know better is just fucked up. if someone doesn't believe in global warming, post why, civilly and most people here will be happy to discuss it. post a stupid statement and you'll get flamed.
i never said i don't believe in man made global warming (although to call it that is incorrect, climate change is the better term), but that maybe our part in it is alot over stated, the earths temperature has fluctuated alot over the past billion or so years, so to not expect a change just because we are around is wrong. And it doesn't help that we started recording accurate data on temperature around the world at one of the coolest points in recent history (1700 to1800's).
Also what about the medieval warm period around the turn of the last millenium, we weren't proucing significant amounts of CO2 then yet the temperature went up and was as warm if not warmer than now, then their was the fact after WWII through to the middle of the 70's temperatures were decreasing despite sky rocketing CO2 production. During that time people were worried we were entering a new ice age!!
scientists don't get paid for results. if someone pays me to find a better way to make an organic chemical, i get paid either way. sure, ill get a nice bonus if i find a really great way, but that's not the point. if i claim to find a way, (and assuming that the employer is stupid and doesn't have the method checked) and it totally fails, i get sued and perhaps locked up.
yes, but if you make headlines with big news stories, you get public attention, with that you get their support and hence more funding,
and it appears the only scientists who gain any kind of recognition are the incredibly brilliant or the crackpots. the same goes for money. the whole unscrupulous scientist who just rushes out an answer doesn't happen, especially not in areas like climate change where every single piece of data is going to be examined in detail by thousands of other scientists, who will make a name for themselves if they can prove it wrong. if there was a massive flaw in IPCC report, how many hours would it take to be discovered? i bet about two.
Yes but the problem is, the scientists who do speak out get ridiculed by the scientific community, only a few months ago they were likened to those who denied that the holocaust happened. Really how ridiculas is that, they have valid scientific points, climatology is a very complex science and one that we will not understand well for a long time and they put forward a point and get ridiculed
to say the argument is over and man made climate change is proven is wrong, the debate is always going to be around as the science behind it is constantly changing. The only way to convince most people would be to cut our CO2 emissions to zero and watch the temperature. But thats never going to happen with in our lifetime.
btw very good post
monster child
2007-04-29, 14:09
^You pretty much just sumed up the main arguments of The Great Global Warming Swindle. As strong an argument as the film makes, if you do your research you will find that there is some very questionable data used.
Connor MacManus
2007-04-30, 20:34
A few points:
1. Scientists and their results can be very biased, because scientists today are very caught up in politics and money. If Bob Smith Inc. is paying for you to do a study on how kick-ass their new widget is, what results do you come up with? Anyone who has worked with or been around statistics even a little bit will know that the same data can be manipulated to almost any outcome.
2. Is global warming even that bad? You've got the horror stories of oceans rising and flooding every coastal city, but I don't think we have to worry about that for a long time, so we don't have to deal with it this minute; we can just play that by ear a little. As far as drastic climate change, disturbing ecosystems, etc, we have to be ridiculously careful. Pretty much everyone will agree that every time people try to "fix" any type of ecosystem, we inadvertently jack it up. So I don't think we can be so cavalier about "fixing" global warming. What if we accidentally fix it too much? I'm not advocating inaction, but we shouldn't all rally around Al, burn all our cars and exhale into plastic baggies.
3. You can't prove anything. Stop trying to act like something is irrefutable, because it's not. In science, there are only theories. You can argue that you theory is correct, but don't tell me that it's proven.
4. Fossil fuels will take care of themselves. We're not going to suddenly "run out" causing the world to stop turning, zombies to uprise, etc. We've had about 30 years reserve of fossil fuels for about 100 years and counting. But then we discover more, staving off globas destruction another 30 years or so. This happens because no one prospects for oil when there's 30 years worth of it. So, as we start to "run out" it becomes profitable to prospect again and more is discovered. Fossil fuels will gradually become more scarce as we use them up, so other types of energy will become gradually phased in, as they become economical/profitable.
5. There is no way to stop using fossil fuels. No one will do it. If you hold up two identical apples, one for 5 dollars and one for 10 dollars, which will the man on the street buy? They do the same thing for him. If he buys the ten dollar apple then he might not have enough left for other essentials. He might really care whether that 5 dollar apple is hurting the environment, but he's in a tough situation. As the 5 dollar apple becomes less common, it's price will climb. Once the 5 dollar apple goes above 10 dollars, then the man will be happy to buy ten dollar apple, because it's good for the environment, and it's the most economical choice for him. Almost no individual or corporation is going to opt for the 10 dollar apple when there is an identical one for sale for 5.
A few points:
1. Scientists and their results can be very biased, because scientists today are very caught up in politics and money. If Bob Smith Inc. is paying for you to do a study on how kick-ass their new widget is, what results do you come up with? Anyone who has worked with or been around statistics even a little bit will know that the same data can be manipulated to almost any outcome.
you don't study products. thats called a review. scientists don't conduct reviews as a matter of routine. im don't think you have much of an idea as to what scientists actually do. politics and money? name one living scientist who hasn't published a prime time book? scientists don't get famous unless they win awards, and awards only come with correct answers.
2. Is global warming even that bad? You've got the horror stories of oceans rising and flooding every coastal city, but I don't think we have to worry about that for a long time, so we don't have to deal with it this minute; we can just play that by ear a little.
coral bleaching is already happening, causing extinction along coral reefs. it is happening right now.
you want to play water in the living room by ear? the rest was just jibberish.
3. You can't prove anything. Stop trying to act like something is irrefutable, because it's not. In science, there are only theories. You can argue that you theory is correct, but don't tell me that it's proven.
the atom, electrons and all sub atomic particles are only theories. but we have computers, rockets, a booming nanotech industry etc. just because you have absolutely no idea how this whole thing works, and latch onto the word theory only makes you wrong, not the idea.
4. Fossil fuels will take care of themselves.
are you talking about global warming or peak oil or what?
5. There is no way to stop using fossil fuels. No one will do it. If you hold up two identical apples, one for 5 dollars and one for 10 dollars, which will the man on the street buy?
your totally missing the point. who mentioned the economy?
pisstest420
2007-05-20, 05:56
Momma Nature is trying to get rid of the most prolific parasite ever imagined. "God created man in his own image." So, to me, God is a parasite.
He lives off our prayers. What does a tick do, but live off blood. Spirit, blood, it costs the same.
And fuck the Live action Underdog movie. He hasnt been a cartoon for 20 years for a fucking reason.
Pirate Hippie
2007-05-20, 19:25
I think humans are partially to blame, because of all the pollution and excess CO2 we create. This is only my opinion though, and you are fully entitled to yours. But the warming and cooling of the Earth DID happen. We're not still in the ice age, are we?
Eat A Queer Fetus For Jesus
2007-05-21, 03:16
True, but I think it's important to remember that anal sex or anal intercourse is a form of human sexual behavior. While there are many sexual acts involving the anus, anal cavity, sphincter valve and/or rectum, the term "anal sex" is often used to mean the insertion of the penis into the rectum. It is a form of sexual intercourse considered to be particularly risky, for a number of reasons related to the vulnerability of the tissues and the septic nature of the anus.
Such relations have been documented in a wide range of cultures, from earliest times; they have also been controversial and sometimes condemned since antiquity. Anal sex is encountered among people of all sexual identities and orientations. While it is reported more frequently among male couples, in absolute numbers more heterosexual couples have anal sex. However it is certainly done more often by gay men.
Dark_Magneto
2007-05-21, 08:29
A few points:
1. Scientists and their results can be very biased, because scientists today are very caught up in politics and money. If Bob Smith Inc. is paying for you to do a study on how kick-ass their new widget is, what results do you come up with?
I agree.
Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1)
Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?
The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit — especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
Intermountain Rural Electric Association is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal, one of the chief sources of greenhouse gasses that scientists agree is quickly pushing earth's average temperature to dangerous levels.
Scientists and consumer advocates say the co-op is trying to confuse its clients about the virtually total scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.
More on this shit:
Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job? (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=1770428&page=1)
A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."
The industry's influence even extends into the White House — where up until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisers, editing scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.
Firecracker
2007-05-27, 06:07
Drop giant ice cubes in the oceans. Done.
haha futurama.
i got it.
Lacedwithdelight
2007-05-29, 04:38
How do you plan to cool down the entire planet again?
-deus-
Its called ecoengineering.
stupid noob
2007-05-29, 06:23
Wow. I didn't know nitrate emissions caused acid rain. I mean, I should have, it's common sense.
My bad. I contributed to acid rain. Is captain planet gonna come fuck me up now?
D-$tack$
2007-06-02, 02:28
While climate change may have happened before, Humans have undoubtedly sped it up.
I just feel the need to say that anyone who was convinced global warming is true by Al Gore's documentary needs to research more. That is the biggest pile of shit I have ever seen. "Global warming caused the extinction of animals," while it shows a bunch of animals fading to grey (which include the saber tooth tiger, the woolly mammoth, and the dodo bird).
Honestly, I'm up in the air about it. In my gut I don't think it's true, but the only ones that agree with me (that I've seen) are religious nuts and complete idiots, which makes me second guess myself. The problem I see is that all the evidence for global warming comes from "Global Warming Awareness" or "stopglobalwarming.com", etc. The IPCC puts out a few reports, but they talk about anthropogenic warming, without proving it's anthropogenic. Hell, there latest report showed that temperature for the Arctic/Anarctic cricle up/down has cooled by >1 degree in the past 30 years. During the Medeival Warming Period the ocean temp was estimated to be 1.5 degrees warmer then it was today (sorry Gore, your graph was off). Even most of the graphs trying to show global warming are extremely biased. I've seen graphs that include the "average temp", then every point on the graph is above average. Pretty convincing, except by definition half of those points should be below average, or else the average temperature line needs to be moved.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against switching to cleaner fuels (I'm tired of seeing "Air quality: Red"), and I also believe in climate change... however anthropogenic climate change? I'm not convinced. I just don't believe that if I seal a jar air tight in 20 years it will be 5 degree cooler then the rest of the atmosphere.
I'm not saying I can't be swayed either way, but currently both sides sound like nuts (especially since most people are convinced by An Inconveint Truth), and my gut tells me GW isn't true.
Dark_Magneto
2007-06-05, 12:38
Honestly, I'm up in the air about it. In my gut I don't think it's true, but the only ones that agree with me (that I've seen) are religious nuts and complete idiots, which makes me second guess myself.
As it should, because they are the unscientific/anti-scientific minority group that try to push bullshit like last thursdayism (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=last+thursdayism) creation into our schools.
During the Medeival Warming Period the ocean temp was estimated to be 1.5 degrees warmer then it was today (sorry Gore, your graph was off).
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect."
- NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
I'm not saying I can't be swayed either way, but currently both sides sound like nuts (especially since most people are convinced by An Inconveint Truth), and my gut tells me GW isn't true.
I'm just curious though because I've asked this question several times with no answer: what exactly do scientists have to gain by exaggerating the threat of global warming? Exaggerating the threat of global warming does not get one more research money.
Perhaps your familiar with the idea of publishing in peer-reviewed journals? This is a way of scientists determining the validity of another scientists findings, that is, making the study available for review by whomever feels the need. Strange how most scientists tend to get the same results across the board whenever they conduct their studies.
Some claim that this can all be explained away by "scientists seeking grants,". That there's some massive conspiracy theory involving a great majority of the worlds scientists, who for some inexplicable reason feel the need and desire to fabricate all of this evidence which points to the fact that the globe is warming and man has caused it, despite the overwhelming pressure from our government to do the opposite, including bribes for scientists who downplay the threat.
Then, on top of that, we have this incredibly elaborate plan which involves scientists somehow independantly conducting studies all over the world and reaching the same conclusions, studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals where all can see, including those minority of scientists who disagree with the concensus.
Who is taking the more reasonable position here? That the scientists are right, and the globe is warming, or an international conspiracy involving a vast majority of the worlds climate scientists bent on misleading the public about the dangers of global warming, despite the personal costs to themselves and with nothing to gain?
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect."
- NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
We all got sources (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503?rbfvrToken=b3527f8140d1ddfd7f0fdac765ac49b01f 52eacb)
"Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was 1°C cooler than today 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). "
I'm just curious though because I've asked this question several times with no answer: what exactly do scientists have to gain by exaggerating the threat of global warming? Exaggerating the threat of global warming does not get one more research money.
They do actually. If Global Warming Awareness or Stop Global Warming comes out and says "Global warming is actually a natural occurance, and humans do not have a significant effect on it" do you think they would recieve any more funding? Do I think that is what's going on? Not particularly, but it is possible. It's not unheard of for researchers and the mass population to flip about nothing though, Y2K anyone?
Dark_Magneto
2007-06-05, 16:40
We all got sources (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503?rbfvrToken=b3527f8140d1ddfd7f0fdac765ac49b01f 52eacb)
"Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was 1°C cooler than today 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). "
That we do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period#Other_regions)
"An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. The core clearly shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000–1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold."
MWP is an inconsistent argument at best.
They do actually. If Global Warming Awareness or Stop Global Warming comes out and says "Global warming is actually a natural occurance, and humans do not have a significant effect on it" do you think they would recieve any more funding?
Likewise, these governments and energy corporations paying people to cause confusion over global warming and avoid having to do anything about it stand to lose their pants if the science is as valid as the vast majority of scientific data through independent research on the subject indicates.
I think the "Global conspiracy from numerous independent climate research scientists the world over to have all their data point at a specific conclusion." argument leaves much to be desired.
There is a scientific concensus about this shit after all, and time and time again we find that the naysayers are being paid by the offending industries to produce foregone conclusions.
Do I think that is what's going on? Not particularly, but it is possible.
Whereas on the other hand, we know for an absolute fact that the other side is trying to buy the problem away and bury the science.
You have a few fringe scientists who do not agree with the greater scientific community, something we find in every field of science whether it be astronomy or biology.
There are deniers no matter which way you look. There are hundreds of scientists still denying the theory of evolution. Many still deny that oil has biotic origins. This is what the "scientific community" is all about, publishing your studies in peer-reviewed journals so that they can be scrutinized and duplicated if necessary.
I find it interesting how the vast majority of scientists all seem to be coming to the exact same "false" conclusions. Conspiracy? Coincidence? I've found not too often that it largely depends on whether or not one a neo-conservative and whether or not his paycheck depends on his perception of the science, more or less.
One thing I've noticed in these debates is how many global-warming deniers categorically reject the scientific concensus on global warming and are quick to place it under an unreasonable level of scrutiny, yet at the same time uncritically accept any statement which contradicts that concensus.
What's also interesting to note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Asso ciation_of_Petroleum_Geologists_.28AAPG.29) is that the only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which is totally unsuprising as you can smell the interest in the title of the organization alone.