Global Warming.

[IamtheVOICE123]

Actually, botanists have been providing some of the best non-atmospheric supporting evidence of AGW for years. Warming is a pretty big deal when your career depends on growing things. In fact, because of the record-keeping and very specific life cycles of some plants, botanists can track the rise in temperature as far back as the 19th century. Here's an example:
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2004/09-03/botanists.html

Ignorance is ugly. When ignorance drives policy decisions that will affect the entire world over the next few decades, it is ugly and dangerous.

You are bringing conspiracy theories to a scientific debate my friend. Your claim of the following states "any botanist that does agree with global warming is paid off by the industrial companies that pollute the atmosphere."

Again this is not the scientific way.

 

[Finger]

Still haven't watched those videos, have you?

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Iamthevoice and PuppetXeno, did either of you even watch the videos? They explain exactly how a small increase in carbon emissions can trigger positive feedback. They explain exactly how we know solar forcing and global dimming are not responsible. They also explain exactly why Al Gore is not and should not be concidered an authority on the subject. This is about science, not politics. The current scientific consensus is that the industrial output of carbon gases are responsible for the current warming trend.

Actually I know potholer54 on youtube and I do appreciate his videos on science. However he makes various statements and claims like "The majority of scientists agree" which is completely irrelevant if you are talking about the science of global warming. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority as it has no real standing in a debate. Or need I remind everyone that the majority of ancient scientific societies agreed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Appealing to authority is not a way to be allowed in any debate unless their is no debate within it. Such as Evolution. Evolution has been proven time and time again and their is no debate among the scientific community weather evolution exists or not, the only debate is what to classify what as and what species tree they should go under. So appealing to authority in that conesus is since the only debate is classification of the species.

 

[Spase]

Also I do know about the photosynthesis process but I would appreciate it if you would not just assume that I would not pay attention to it. I am for an open discussion and a debate and I would welcome any evidence to do so. As far as the peer reviewed literature goes on Green House Gasses increasing a growth in plant life (Green House Gasses commence various elements other than just CO2, like Hydrogen and Methane; also I never stated it was CO2 only) I would have to look for them, it's been a while since I read the literature and I forgot the name of it. If you would give me a day or two I could come up with it.

Fair enough.

Please understand that if I come across harshly it's in response to you writing that all the scientists and botanists you know make a claim (that you put in quotes without naming the scientists or botanists) that strikes me as deeply false. I do study biochemistry and microbiology and when something strikes me as a false claim being made with an appeal to un-cited authority I wonder.

I assumed it was about CO2 because that was the only one that I could think of a reasonable basis for. Plants absorb CO2 and use it to make carbohydrates. I'm not sure how a methane rich environment would have an effect and if there's information on it I'd e interested.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Fair enough.

Please understand that if I come across harshly it's in response to you writing that all the scientists and botanists you know make a claim (that you put in quotes without naming the scientists or botanists) that strikes me as deeply false. I do study biochemistry and microbiology and when something strikes me as a false claim being made with an appeal to un-cited authority I wonder.

I assumed it was about CO2 because that was the only one that I could think of a reasonable basis for. Plants absorb CO2 and use it to make carbohydrates. I'm not sure how a methane rich environment would have an effect and if there's information on it I'd e interested.

Fair enough, I usually have a problem remembering names due to the abuse I suffered earlier on in my life. So I can't remember who made the quote. I will however look for it and trace it to its root and them post it here with the peer reviewed literature I find.

Also methane isn't rich within Green Houses Gasses but is is implemented in small doses.

 

[Finger]

Actually I know potholer54 on youtube and I do appreciate his videos on science. However he makes various statements and claims like "The majority of scientists agree" which is completely irrelevant if you are talking about the science of global warming. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority as it has no real standing in a debate. Or need I remind everyone that the majority of ancient scientific societies agreed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Saying, "most scientists used to think X" as an excuse to dismiss a scientific a consensus is itself a fallacy. You're forgetting that the important thing isn't what you think, but rather why you think it. Potholer doesn't just say, "most climatologists think this" then leave it at that, he explains specifically why they think this and specifically why the various alternate explanations do not account for all the evidence.

I find it incredibly ironic that you bring up evolution, since creationists almost always use your exact same logic to dismiss the 100 year-old scientific consensus in biology. Yes, the ACC model isn't nearly as well supported as Evolution, but you yourself admitted that you were not up to date on the scientific literature, instead choosing to believe the various straw men and red herrings that have been constructed by rumor mills similar to those used by creationists. If you really cared about the truth at all here, then look up the science, not the hype.

 

[Aught3]

I find it ironic that Iamthevoice lambastes Joe for using science incorrectly, then claims that the science surrounding climate change is heavily divided or that some people are doing bad science. Sure we don't understand all the variables and our models are just that; models, but the science behind them is good and Joe is accurately reporting the current consensus.

"The majority of scientists agree" which is completely irrelevant if you are talking about the science of global warming. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority as it has no real standing in a debate.

Wrong. This is hardly formal logic we're discussing here. Noting that the scientific consensus supports your position does have standing in this kind of informal debate. It becomes your job to show us why the consensus of scientists is wrong.

The thing with climate change is that we don't have another planet to move to if we screw this one up. It is within our technological abilities to reduce pollution - and we shouldn't need the threat of climate change in order to kick-start the cleaner processes.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Saying, "most scientists used to think X" as an excuse to dismiss a scientific a consensus is itself a fallacy. You're forgetting that the important thing isn't what you think, but rather why you think it. Potholer doesn't just say, "most climatologists think this" then leave it at that, he explains specifically why they think this and specifically why the various alternate explanations do not account for all the evidence.

I find it incredibly ironic that you bring up evolution, since creationists almost always use your exact same logic to dismiss the 100 year-old scientific consensus in biology. Yes, the ACC model isn't nearly as well supported as Evolution, but you yourself admitted that you were not up to date on the scientific literature, instead choosing to believe the various straw men and red herrings that have been constructed by rumor mills similar to those used by creationists. If you really cared about the truth at all here, then look up the science, not the hype.

Strawmaning me I see.

First off; it is a far comparison because many philosophers and ancient scientists believed the Sun revolved around the earth and they gave reasons why they believed so. As is stating, because you give reasons why you believe what you believe does not make it fact but simply evidence that does and cannot be countered makes it fact. Now that that is out of the way let me go ahead and clarify something here.

I am not behind on peer review literature. I just stated it has been a while since I have looked up the name of the person who have stated as such. Please do not quote mine me.

Now then the last thing I wanna end my contribution to this to my last argument. The melting of the polar icecaps along with Greenland is entirely natural. Greenland used to be a green and lush environment during the Medieval time where grapes for wine was made and distributed all around Europe. And their has been evidence of ancient civilizations in the Southern Pole that would suggest that it was not always frozen (the Mammoth found in the Antarctic with food still found in its mouth that would suggest it was grazing a gassy land suggests this).

Now then, if we are the cause of Global Warming the only thing that will be gone is us. The earth has been through far worse than us. Son Sports, Solar Flares, Magnetic reversal of the poles, thousands of years of being bombarded with commits and meteors, global area floods, super volcanoes, freezing of the earth surface and then some. For people to think that we would be killing the planet is pure nonsense. The planet has been through a shit load worse than us and if we are the ones causing global warming then the only thing that will be going is us as a human species.

If the world fell into a Nuclear War the earth would survive.

Now to the actual and legitimate concerns I have. I do think that we as a species should reduce pollution to help for our own survival as we need clean air and clean water. We should also tailor to cleaner energy such as geothermal energy (which is completely renewable) and electric based cars for transport.

In all honesty; I think the real reason we should get away from industrialized fossil fuels is because they are not necessary to keep us going. Not because it is threatening the earth (the idea is fucking laughable) but because it would be beneficial to us a species for survival. The only I reject is the idea that human beings in the 150 years we have been in heavy industry is somehow causing the polar ice caps to melt.

Our Species has lived for one hundred thousand years, maybe two hundred thousand and the thought of a 150 years of heavy industry will somehow put the planet in jeopardy is ludicrous. Like George Carlin state it... "The planet isn't going anywhere... WE ARE!!"

Now if the question was raised if it is a threat to our survival as a species then yah I would take into consideration; but it is always raised that "We are killing our planet" which is ridiculous.

However if the scientific consensus has been for this issue the survival of the species then I would be willing to accept the idea of global warming for the basis of that. Now then; I open the dialogue for anyone to respond.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I find it ironic that Iamthevoice lambastes Joe for using science incorrectly, then claims that the science surrounding climate change is heavily divided or that some people are doing bad science. Sure we don't understand all the variables and our models are just that; models, but the science behind them is good and Joe is accurately reporting the current consensus.

Wrong. This is hardly formal logic we're discussing here. Noting that the scientific consensus supports your position does have standing in this kind of informal debate. It becomes your job to show us why the consensus of scientists is wrong.

The thing with climate change is that we don't have another planet to move to if we screw this one up. It is within our technological abilities to reduce pollution - and we shouldn't need the threat of climate change in order to kick-start the cleaner processes.

What's interesting is that the cranks and crackpots are making the same "appeal to authority" that they accuse others of, except their "authorities" are generally idiots, criminals, and liars. Since none of us can possibly become experts on every subject, we are forced to cede a certain amount of responsibility for knowing stuff to the experts. When the vast majority of experts agree on one thing, it doesn't mean that we're claiming that they are right because they are experts... because that WOULD be a fallacy. We can only state, correctly, that AGW is established science. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the deniers. And, as my link showed, even AGW deniers know that the accepted science is true. Also ironic that some people rather stupidly attack Al Gore as though he's a climate scientist, but their attacks are always based on lies and personal attacks, while claiming that others are making logical fallacies.

You have to use a bit of common sense. Either the science points to AGW, as nearly every scientist on earth with relevant knowledge accepts, or you have to come up with evidence of the giant conspiracy it would take to make every scientist on Earth lie every single day of their professional lives.

 

[Aught3]

Our Species has lived for one hundred thousand years, maybe two hundred thousand and the thought of a 150 years of heavy industry will somehow put the planet in jeopardy is ludicrous. Like George Carlin state it... "The planet isn't going anywhere... WE ARE!!"

What are you talking about? Nobody thinks that climate change is going to destroy the planet Earth. The remote possibility is that it could wipe out a vast chunk of species, dramatically alter the climate and/or coastline; but the planet will still be here obviously.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

What are you talking about? Nobody thinks that climate change is going to destroy the planet Earth. The remote possibility is that it could wipe out a vast chunk of species, dramatically alter the climate and/or coastline; but the planet will still be here obviously.

Well if that is the case then I am willing to indulge into the possibility of man made global warming.

 

[orpiment99]

Ever of the mini-ice age? Ever hear that the earth during the middle ages were far warmer than they are now?

LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.

TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.

KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The above has nothing to do with long term climate change. Of course, this doesn't cover all of the "mini ice age", but there are also suggestions that solar cycles or the thermohaline current could have caused some of it. There is even someone apparently doing research on whether or not the drop in CO2 caused by the Black Plague had anything to do with it. I couldn't find anything peer reviewed, yet, but it will be interesting to read if it gets published.

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
Wallace S. Broecker
During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5508/1497

The above indicates that it is a normal oscillation. It also states that these normal oscillations are currently being overwhelmed by greenhouse gasses.

Climatologists are fairly unanimous on global warming. We are, after all, still recovering from an ice age. In any naturally balanced system, small inputs can affect the system. So while human impact is small, it could be enough to over run the bucket.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

The above indicates that it is a normal oscillation. It also states that these normal oscillations are currently being overwhelmed by greenhouse gasses.

Climatologists are fairly unanimous on global warming. We are, after all, still recovering from an ice age. In any naturally balanced system, small inputs can affect the system. So while human impact is small, it could be enough to over run the bucket.

Well that does make sense. However; their are specific people, namely very respected researches in the field who don't agree like Dr, Roy Spencer, Professor Philip Scott, along with Ian Clark that don't agree. They also give some very compelling arguments for the fact that man made global warming isn't correct science and it is more a political campaign. A man called Lord Lawson of Blaby who was a chief investigator of the first scientists that went to see what global warming was really about. After he stated "We were the first ones to fund a report on man made Global Warming. The thing that surprised us was how weak the science was that man made Global Warming was real."

This is even featured in a documentary called Global Warming Swindle if you want to watch it. I'll check out those articles though.

 

[orpiment99]

To be fair, research in science is often affected by who will pay for what. But, that should mean that we would see more articles refuting anthropogenic climate change because of the number of industries with a vested interest in refuting it and its consequences. At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that humans are having an affect on the rate and amount of warming the Earth is experiencing. There are a number of peer reviewed articles on the subject, some that are dissenting opinions. If you are really interested in the subject, you should check them out. Some are available on line and many can be obtained at a public library. But don't take the word of reports in non peer reviewed "scientific" magazines. They often sensationalize things.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

To be fair, research in science is often affected by who will pay for what. But, that should mean that we would see more articles refuting anthropogenic climate change because of the number of industries with a vested interest in refuting it and its consequences. At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that humans are having an affect on the rate and amount of warming the Earth is experiencing. There are a number of peer reviewed articles on the subject, some that are dissenting opinions. If you are really interested in the subject, you should check them out. Some are available on line and many can be obtained at a public library. But don't take the word of reports in non peer reviewed "scientific" magazines. They often sensationalize things.

True enough; but in all account I don't think that stating something along the lines of peer reviewed literature is factual. At times it has been tainted for ventured interests really, not to mention the fact that this year's Global Warming Conference with Al Gore only allowed one scientific to object to anything and he was in favor of Global Warming. I don't like if something is driven politically by environmentalists that are willing to rather go back to the midievil time periods and say shit like "If I had the chance to come back after I died, I would come back as a Virus to reduce the human population."

These people are even one of the main deciding factor in how Global Warming will play out in science. It shouldn't be to get funding, it should be to achieve results. Also you make it sound like those that are scientists who don't agree with global warming sound like they were paid off by the oil industries. This is not a way how to state that they are wrong. Also, I do not trust any kind of science that has a political driven campaign behind it where people spew at the mouth accusations in saying that you're a heretic. I do not agree with that. I listen to all sides of the story, whether in peer review or not, it's not healthy to get all your information from a specific source that requires things go through a hoop when it has already been contaminated by invested corporations and even through the medical industry (you can't deny that their are false reports filed under peer reviewed literature that are not shady). But at any case, once it get's out of a political campaign then I will be more open to the idea (politics just give me a stomach flip flop when it's involved in science funding. I just don't trust the interest of politics, haven't since Bush was elected).

 

[orpiment99]

Research is expensive. As I understand it, funding can be allocated in a number of ways, but a certain portion of it is funded by industry, who can specify what kind of research they want their money to go to. The same with environmental groups or private concerns. That said, the reason we, as scientists, esteem peer review is because it is designed to remove bias. The paper is evaluated on merit, on the quality of the research and on the feasibility of the conclusions.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I listen to all sides of the story, whether in peer review or not, it's not healthy to get all your information from a specific source that requires things go through a hoop when it has already been contaminated by invested corporations and even through the medical industry (you can't deny that their are false reports filed under peer reviewed literature that are not shady)

Feel free to listen to all sides of a story. But if one side is represented by 4 scientists, a few of which are being paid directly by a company who wants the research to turn out their way... and the other side is represented by 96 scientists, who are mostly concerned with the well-being of the planet - maybe you should listen CLOSER to the side with the 96 scientists?

I mean, You can find 4/100 people that work in Biology to say that intelligent design is right and evolution is wrong: I shit you not. So are you going to listen to the intelligent design people and BELIEVE THEM, just because they bring up things you don't know anything about?

You obviously have some serious trust issues with the government - that's fine. But maybe you should ALSO be seriously mistrustful of the companies that stand to lose billions and billions of dollars that are trying to fund research, especially when we find out that they have suppressed unfavorable results. To believe that side of an argument, even if there are a couple unbiased scientists on that side, is beyond foolish.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Feel free to listen to all sides of a story. But if one side is represented by 4 scientists, a few of which are being paid directly by a company who wants the research to turn out their way... and the other side is represented by 96 scientists, who are mostly concerned with the well-being of the planet - maybe you should listen CLOSER to the side with the 96 scientists?

I mean, You can find 4/100 people that work in Biology to say that intelligent design is right and evolution is wrong: I shit you not. So are you going to listen to the intelligent design people and BELIEVE THEM, just because they bring up things you don't know anything about?

Oh no, I have already made up my mind that Intelligent Design is not science (since I was 8 years old when I heard the bullshit).

And truth be told, I always reference everything that state in documentaries and peer reviewed literature with science text books and whatnot to see if they are being askewed, full of bollocks and so forth. And also yes, they sometimes masquerade for the well being of the planet, but doesn't PETA masquerade for the well being of animals? Just because people say they are for the well being of something doesn't mean they may be lying through their teeth. And Yes I do check the people who are funded and by whom.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Feel free to listen to all sides of a story. But if one side is represented by 4 scientists, a few of which are being paid directly by a company who wants the research to turn out their way... and the other side is represented by 96 scientists, who are mostly concerned with the well-being of the planet - maybe you should listen CLOSER to the side with the 96 scientists?

I mean, You can find 4/100 people that work in Biology to say that intelligent design is right and evolution is wrong: I shit you not. So are you going to listen to the intelligent design people and BELIEVE THEM, just because they bring up things you don't know anything about?

You obviously have some serious trust issues with the government - that's fine. But maybe you should ALSO be seriously mistrustful of the companies that stand to lose billions and billions of dollars that are trying to fund research, especially when we find out that they have suppressed unfavorable results. To believe that side of an argument, even if there are a couple unbiased scientists on that side, is beyond foolish.

What's weird about it is that conspiracy crackpots can reject OTHER conspiracy crackpots, but have such a gigantic blind spot that they cannot ever see that the stupidity that the can so clearly recognize in others is 110% matched by the stupidity of their own viewpoints.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The problem is, you do not have the expertise to tell if research is being skewed. You can be easily mislead, as is shown by your beliefs on 9/11, etc. Reading the studies isn't going to do anything for you.

How about trusting the 96% of scientists that both DO know what they are talking about and DO NOT seem to have agendas vs trusting the 4% of scientists who may be mistaken, have misinterpreted results, or have ulterior motives? We aren't talking about a lot of informed people disagreeing here, we are talking about a 25:1 ratio. The same ratio you find in many scientific endeavors - there will always be people that disagree. You shouldn't let them influence you to make bets about the future of life as we know it on this planet.