Interesting global warming argument

[Iz Man]

Hey! Iz Man, you've been editing your posts to replace the drivel you spouted originally!

This:

The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

edited for accuracy

was later changed to:

The depletion of the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming (although they are linked), so I don't know what relevance your paragraph here has. So I haven't bothered to check if it's correct.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 ... r-induced/

CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) contribute to ozone depletion, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. There were more CFC's produced in those 2 eruptions than what has been produced by man since man has been producing CFC's.
Source: National Climatic Data Center

after it had already been responded to! Cheat!

At any rate, the problems caused by CFCs are mainly the depletion of the ozone layer, and according to this site, contribute only 10% of total atmospheric warming. So, your (amended) original statement - "The eruptions of Mt. St. Helens & Mt. Pinatubo put more greenhouse inducing elements in the atmosphere than every car on the planet since the invention of the internal combustion engine." is still completely and utterly wrong.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up. Heavycola's questions are more pertinent.

I was in the middle of my edit when you posted. look at the times.

[Stopper]

I was in the middle of my edit when you posted. look at the times.

I suppose I could believe that it took you more than 13 minutes (the length of time between my post and your edit) to type out:

CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) contribute to ozone depletion, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. There were more CFC's produced in those 2 eruptions than what has been produced by man since man has been producing CFC's.
Source: National Climatic Data Center

I don't, but it's hardly worth my while pursuing this. I take it you accept my rebuttal anyway.

Anyway,

There's a link there, if you look for it. Once again please tell me why you are so happy to dismiss an interpretation of the available evidence ON CLIMATE CHANGE supported by 1,200 CLIMATOLOGISTS. Again, there is a link. Posting the opinions of a single denier is not a response; I am aware there are people who disagree. What i asked you was whether every one of the scientists who put their name to that document are simply wrong, and if so where your better-informed interpretation of the data comes from.

[Iz Man]

Whatever.
You can all go ahead and believe man is creating an apocalypse right before our eyes and sulk in it.
I'd rather live a less morbid view of life and the world as we know it. I'd rather rely on logic & reason vs. feeling & emotion.

No one here has shown any proof.
A consensus. One that I could counter with another consensus.

Show me proof that man is causing this global catastrophe you all are predicting.

[The1exile]

could != are.

[Bertros Bertros]

Whilst the treehuggers and the gasguzzlers argue the toss over whether or not man has caused the current trends in global warming its easy to forget that it makes little difference. Both sides readily agree the planet is warming and that the potential impact of even fairly insubstantial climate change on the human population is devastating. Whether human activity is to blame or not if some form of human activity (or inactivity if necessary) can help to reduce the speed of warming or alleviate the effects then it would certainly seem prudent to do so.

The problem is multi-facted. Firstly global warming is being over hyped and over used by the environmental lobby. Its a tangible and serious phenomenon that will have demonstrable impact in our life times and so its being used to drive a whole raft of green issues (all of which have merit in their own right e.g. reduction of waste, recycling, use of renewable fuel sources etc), which has lead to a degree of misinformation because it has become a flagship cause.

Secondly, on the back of any popular culture, and yes being environmentally friendly is a popular culture (well at least in the UK), there are people wanting to make a quick buck. So we get more misinformation as the marketing men step in with their clever ploys to start our conscience burning and get us to part with our money to make us feel better.

Thridly, there are those who stand to lose out because their business or product is seen as a contributing to climate change. Or even those who just don't want to make any sacrifices. More misinformation as these folks attempt to stop the other side gaining momentum.

The end result is not many people really know what they are talking about, me included. I studied meterology and climatology at degree level for 3 years and my girlfriend works for the Environment Agency and so my knowledge is still current and regularly challendged on this subject and I don't really know what I'm talking about. I can tell you for fact the Earth is warming, I can tell you for fact it has warmed and cooled much more dramatically before, I can tell you for fact that human activity is accelerating the current trend of warming, but I can't actually tell you for fact whether or not this will continue and how severe the impact will be.

Personally I think its not all that relevant in a discussion on whether we should adopt "greener" life styles. Should we look at alternatives to fossil fuels? Of course we should, they are finite resources, its a no brainer. Should we attempt to reduce waste and recycle where possible? Of course we should, we all want to live in a pleasant environment, and filling it up with the spoil of our lives is not going to achieve that. Should we all be using energy efficient lightbulbs? Duh - they save you money. Should we attempt to stop the release of toxic chemicals into our rivers and seas? Do you like swimming or want to eat fish, then yes. Its all common sense.

In some respects by focussing so heavily on the doomsaying I think global warming is in danger of damaging the credibility and allure of greener living because the facts are abused by both sides and it puts to much emphasis on the stick and not enough on carrots.

[Hitman079]

if global warming does not exist, what is responsible for the elevated deaths of polar bears as a direct result of the shrinking polar caps?

[vtmarik]

if global warming does not exist, what is responsible for the elevated deaths of polar bears as a direct result of the shrinking polar caps?

Hunters, it easy to hit them when they're all on one ice block.

[unriggable]

Whatever.
You can all go ahead and believe man is creating an apocalypse right before our eyes and sulk in it.
I'd rather live a less morbid view of life and the world as we know it. I'd rather rely on logic & reason vs. feeling & emotion.

AKA be naive.

No one here has shown any proof.

See above. I posted a link that shows temperature to CO2 level.

[magneticgoop]

i for on am a huge skeptic on man causing global warming i think it is some type of revers ice age a natural occurrence that would be impossible (at the present) to stop. but this guy makes sense he is unbiased and logical this really makes me reconsider

[g unit]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

[alex_white101]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

wow ur arguments are so convincing....... normally u r expected to give reasons for your opinions.......

[g unit]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

wow ur arguments are so convincing....... normally u r expected to give reasons for your opinions.......

ya but it's late and i don't want to waste evergy on some useless shit i don't care about!

[spurgistan]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

wow ur arguments are so convincing....... normally u r expected to give reasons for your opinions.......

ya but it's late and i don't want to waste evergy on some useless shit i don't care about!

Nobody's making you post...

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

wow ur arguments are so convincing....... normally u r expected to give reasons for your opinions.......

ya but it's late and i don't want to waste evergy on some useless shit i don't care about!

If you don't care about it then stop spewing crap in this thread. I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence that has happened multiple times, however after watching a few documentaries both for and against humans causing global warming I have come to the conclusion that mankind id making it worse....Ok, I've only watched 2 documentaries about it An Inconvenient Truth and another one saying global warming was no caused by man. But as I see it, greenhouse gases are real, I'm sure we can all agree on that, and gas would act as....uh...sort of like gelatin, if you fire a bullet into gelatin it won't travel as far as if you just shot a bullet through air. So why wouldn't gas do the same? Slow the progress of sunlight in and completely stop it on the way out, if there was enough greenhouse gases. Of course I'm no expert...

[g unit]

if global warming does not exist, what is responsible for the elevated deaths of polar bears as a direct result of the shrinking polar caps?

hey ass hole! the heat is acually helping the polar bears, cus then the seals come out of the water! and BOOM easy food for dem bears! plus ice caps form just as fast as the melt! dumb ass!

[g unit]

i think the whole global warming thing is SHIT! so f*ck it!

wow ur arguments are so convincing....... normally u r expected to give reasons for your opinions.......

ya but it's late and i don't want to waste evergy on some useless shit i don't care about!

Nobody's making you post...

i'm bored bitch!

[Bertros Bertros]

i'm bored bitch!

Well go juggle your bollacks or something instead of spamming an interesting discussion with your purile rantings. Perhaps you should haul your ass back into flame wars where the rest of the kiddies too lazy to make an intelligent contribution can tell you how much they loved your mom.

[Stopper]

Personally I think its not all that relevant in a discussion on whether we should adopt "greener" life styles. Should we look at alternatives to fossil fuels? Of course we should, they are finite resources, its a no brainer. Should we attempt to reduce waste and recycle where possible? Of course we should, we all want to live in a pleasant environment, and filling it up with the spoil of our lives is not going to achieve that. Should we all be using energy efficient lightbulbs? Duh - they save you money. Should we attempt to stop the release of toxic chemicals into our rivers and seas? Do you like swimming or want to eat fish, then yes. Its all common sense.

I agree with much of what you’ve said, particularly about the irresponsibility and extremism of some environmental groups and activists.

But I have to disagree with the above. I believe the motivations behind adopting environmentally-friendly policies are relevant. The problem is one of timescale: if we are supposed to prevent the Earth’s temperature from increasing beyond an extra 2 degrees Celsius, then it’s unlikely that we can take our time with these policies. The measures taken will probably have to be sharp and painful to a lot of people in the Western world, and they will have to be taken over a short period of time.

People will not accept much higher fuel and vehicle costs, fewer (or no) flights to Spain, etc, etc, if they think that the only reason for these is simply to make the environment a bit more pleasant. They would have to be convinced, somehow, of the actual necessity for these changes.

When British people are asked in surveys, most pay lip-service to the global warming crisis, but when it actually comes to doing anything, they are up in arms about it. There’s been huge opposition to wind farms in my area, and now that some councils in the south of England have started rubbish recycling policies, there was an “outcry” in the media about that too (incidentally, in my area, we have been recycling for quite a long time now, with hardly a peep about it – but then I live in the north of England, and the BBC and newspapers don’t generally seem to be very concerned about what happens here.) Even many of those people who aren’t against wind farms, recycling, etc, think it’s just a matter of buying a few energy-saving light bulbs, planting a few trees, and that’s it.

Anyway, can’t hang about, I’m going to drive down to the gym to get some exercise.

[Neutrino]

Anyway, can’t hang about, I’m going to drive down to the gym to get some exercise.

Blatant hypocrisy strikes again

[AlgyTaylor]

I'm all for global warming. If you think about it ... who's actually going to suffer from it? A few American farmers who're bleeding Africa dry with their cheap (subsidised) grain exports? Some people who already live in hear uninhabitable land anyway?

Global dimming might be a problem, using up the earth's resources at a ridiculous, unsustainable rate is a problem, ... I just don't think that global warming is, really.

[Neutrino]

I'm all for global warming. If you think about it ... who's actually going to suffer from it? A few American farmers who're bleeding Africa dry with their cheap (subsidised) grain exports? Some people who already live in hear uninhabitable land anyway?

Global dimming might be a problem, using up the earth's resources at a ridiculous, unsustainable rate is a problem, ... I just don't think that global warming is, really.

Who's going to suffer? Oh, just people living on costal regions, nothing major. Even in most of the milder scenario's, Florida becomes an archipelago.
Methinks that will affect a lot of people.

[Bertros Bertros]

When British people are asked in surveys, most pay lip-service to the global warming crisis, but when it actually comes to doing anything, they are up in arms about it.

Exactly. One of the biggest issues here is money, being green can be expensive. For example the most expensive supermarkets are also those with the highest ratings in terms of distance to market and other green benchmarks. Convincing all people its worth the cost will need more than appealing to conscience. Sadly if the green agenda is to succeed quickly it will need other appeal.

That being said whilst the effort being made locally or even nationally gets better this isn't reciprocated internationally. The US are still dragging their heels, India and China are industrialising rapidly, without a fully global consensus on action we are definitely pissing in the wind making a few windfarms or boycotting flights.

So that being said should we not be looking now at how to handle the changes a warming climate will bring about, compensate for rises in sea level for example or prepare for more arid conditions? There is an unfounded and almost unspoken arrogance in the prevailing attitude that humans caused the current global warming and that we could be able to stop it happening. We are capable of mitigating the effects, however this could lead to some tough international situations and I think there is every chance that in 50+ years time it will be water, whether that be lack of it or too much, not oil that we are all fighting over.

[Iz Man]

Who's going to suffer? Oh, just people living on costal regions, nothing major. Even in most of the milder scenario's, Florida becomes an archipelago.
Methinks that will affect a lot of people.

Chicken Little:
"The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"

[Stopper]

Sadly if the green agenda is to succeed quickly it will need other appeal.

That being said whilst the effort being made locally or even nationally gets better this isn't reciprocated internationally. The US are still dragging their heels, India and China are industrialising rapidly, without a fully global consensus on action we are definitely pissing in the wind making a few windfarms or boycotting flights.

Just to point out, when I talked about these future measures that might be taken, I didn't mean on a voluntary basis, so I'm not suggesting anyone boycotts flights, for example - that's just useless and ineffective. So far as I can see, some form of coercion, probably through taxation is the only thing that would be effective. (There's also the idea of carbon rationing amongst individuals, which would be far fairer, but that strikes me as a pipe dream.)

I don't think people will ever really accept the kinds of taxes and constraints on their lifestyles that some people have mooted. So I think softening the populace up now for what is to come is the best thing that can be done at the moment.

(Also, yes, I'm only talking about these measures in the context of a post-Kyoto agreement. Without one, no, it's completely pointless.)

So that being said should we not be looking now at how to handle the changes a warming climate will bring about, compensate for rises in sea level for example or prepare for more arid conditions? There is an unfounded and almost unspoken arrogance in the prevailing attitude that humans caused the current global warming and that we could be able to stop it happening. We are capable of mitigating the effects, however this could lead to some tough international situations and I think there is every chance that in 50+ years time it will be water, whether that be lack of it or too much, not oil that we are all fighting over.

Not having read much about the idea of actually letting global warming happen, and then mitigating the effects afterwards, I can't speak from much of an informed position on this.

But my knee-jerk reaction is that most of the people who will be most affected by any climate change would be in Africa and Asia, that is, the poorest nations on Earth. The richest nations would have less severe effects, and cope better (Katrina notwithstanding). So effectively, if all the predictions became true and are human-induced, the poorest nations would have to deal with the effects of the pollution of the richest nations - such as the more arid conditions you mention. I certainly can't see the EU or the USA handing much out in the way of aid for the damage they have caused. The third world can barely prize open their fists as it is.

Also, the possible effects are so complicated, and lie on such a range of probabilities, I'm not immediately convinced that planning for these outcomes can plausibly be done. It strikes me that prevention would be better than cure. But, like I say, this is just my knee jerking.

[ritz627]

Don't let the enironmentalists scare you. They have an agenda. This is how they get paid, so they want to scare you.

This was one of the comments left by a person on the site where the video came from. I just thought that it was hilarious how a republican, the master of the scare tactics can accuse an environmentalist of the same. Plus, most don't get paid for talking about global warming. If you don't believe in it, I have an incredible amount of pity for you.