Global warming issue... I thought I knew!

[cipher]

There's a very good post on the world affairs that I read just now... Global warming issue was just a point that was laid down as casually as it could have been. We are on the tripping point and some believe this might cause the worst havoc in the history of mankind.
Do you think the same??? I thought I knew what global warming was, and being an educated young guy, I was not in a mood to understand it in depth.
But when I started reading about it, I found out what a terror it is. We are living under the shadow of extinction ourselves and still not realising.
I would like to open a discussion on the topic and get to know how much you people know...
Please also go through the following link, Global warming issue
Educate yourself and people around you about the issue and start helping yourself out. We can really make a difference.
How much you know? and how much you got to know after reading the discussion here? share your views.

[schola]

I'm really on the fence about global warming. I don't know what to think. I used to be gung ho about stopping "Global Warming" until I started listening to both sides.

Most scientists don't know what to think either. One thing I am positive about is that the CO2/greenhouse connection isn't as conclusive as some people would like you to think. There is still a huge debate among meteorologists and climatologists about the effect of CO2 on our climate.

There is a large political force that is very interested in pushing global warming hype on us for some reason.

The Inconvenient Truth really had an effect on me...until I looked into the facts that Al Gore pushed and found out he exaggerated or lied his way through the whole movie.

RealClimate

Doesn't mean our Earth isn't warming or that it isn't caused by humans, but we should really look into the issue before we jump on board.

They can't even get their facts straight. The Earth has actually COOLED in the past 10 years or so. We had the coldest winter in quite a while last year.

An emerging truth | The Spectator

[Dave Kaminski]

Whether or not it's cooling the world or warming it, the current rate of pollution is completely inexcusable.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

[PianoManGidley]

I say go ahead and go green anyway. The worst that could happen is we reduce pollution in general--whether or not that affects global warming doesn't change the fact that the earth will look like a nicer, cleaner place. :-D

[Stu]

Originally Posted by schola

I'm really on the fence about global warming. I don't know what to think. I used to be gung ho about stopping "Global Warming" until I started listening to both sides.

Most scientists don't know what to think either. One thing I am positive about is that the CO2/greenhouse connection isn't as conclusive as some people would like you to think. There is still a huge debate among meteorologists and climatologists about the effect of CO2 on our climate.

There is a large political force that is very interested in pushing global warming hype on us for some reason.

The Inconvenient Truth really had an effect on me...until I looked into the facts that Al Gore pushed and found out he exaggerated or lied his way through the whole movie.

RealClimate

Doesn't mean our Earth isn't warming or that it isn't caused by humans, but we should really look into the issue before we jump on board.

They can't even get their facts straight. The Earth has actually COOLED in the past 10 years or so. We had the coldest winter in quite a while last year.

An emerging truth | The Spectator

The most comprehensive, informed, scientific source on climate change is the IPCC, and they say that the fact that the globe is warming in *unequivocal* and that there is a 90% chance that most of that warming is caused by humans. That is the scientific consensus on climate change.

One more thing, as this thread will probably get big and nasty I would encourage everyone to check to see who runs and/or funds any sites you link to with 'evidence' for your side of the argument. There are many, many very scientific looking sites out there on both sides of this argument that are run by people with purely political interests. In fact it's generally a bad idea to link to sites like that period. If you want to provide evidence in a scientific debate that evidence should come from a peer-reviewed journal, anything else simply invites skepticism.

EDIT: Just as an example of what I'm talking about, I did a whois search on realclimate.org, the site that schola linked to above. It's run by an organization called Environmental Media Services, which is run by Arlie Schardt, who is Al Gore's former communications director. So that site probably has a fair amount of bias.

[supertom]

one theory is that the people pushing this, allocated their assets into green-companies.

[Brutha]

one theory is that the people pushing this, allocated their assets into green-companies.

Obviously people who have many and care about global warming invest into green companies.
However there is much more money in oil. I think people spent much more money to convince people that global warming doesn't happen than they spent money to convice people that it does happen.

[viscapes]

Originally Posted by schola

They can't even get their facts straight. The Earth has actually COOLED in the past 10 years or so. We had the coldest winter in quite a while last year.

This is a common misunderstanding which is why the term "Global Warming" has generally been replaced with "Climate Change" these days. It is possible for "global warming" to produce colder weather. For example, if the Earth's temperature were to increase by 4C the warm North Atlantic current which currently keeps Britain, Ireland and other parts of Europe unusually warm in the winter would likely cease, with winter temperatures in the UK subsequently becoming similar to those in Moscow (London and Moscow are on the same latitude). The fact that "global warming" causes colder weather often confuses people and clouds the issue.

Also, the fact that companies are begining to make money from green products seems to be putting people off. Realistically, the only way of achieving sustainable eco-friendly lifestyles is to create a green economy where people can make money from green products but I worry that people's natural skepticism whenever money is involved might adversely influence their perception of the issues.

There's a phenominal book on the issues mankind faces in the 21st century, with the environment of course being a central issue. It's called "The Meaning of the Twenty First Century" by James Martin and I highly recommend reading it.

Cheers
Paul

[PianoManGidley]

I think one of the primary reasons there's so much resistance against Global Warming is that people just don't realize its effects directly. Most Conservatives live here in the South, where it gets Really Freaking Hot during the summer. Now, if the temperature here rises a couple degrees between one summer and the next, we're not going to really notice, because we're STILL sweating just as much as ever. And for those of you who don't believe me, try spending a few weeks here in Houston in the months of July and August, where heat indexes get into triple digits, and the humidity is relentless. :-P

[viscapes]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

I think one of the primary reasons there's so much resistance against Global Warming is that people just don't realize its effects directly. Most Conservatives live here in the South, where it gets Really Freaking Hot during the summer. Now, if the temperature here rises a couple degrees between one summer and the next, we're not going to really notice, because we're STILL sweating just as much as ever. And for those of you who don't believe me, try spending a few weeks here in Houston in the months of July and August, where heat indexes get into triple digits, and the humidity is relentless. :-P

I think you have a point. I think there are more indirect consequences however that people aren't aware of.

In the next 50 years almost 3 billion will be added to the global population and the overwhelming majority of them will live in shanty-cities where poverty is increasing, resources are decreasing and where disease, famine and extreme social unrest is already resulting. These are prime areas for extremism to incubate, for terrorist to recruit a never-ending supply of jihadists and for unimaginable suffering to take place. This will directly affect all of us on all sorts of levels.

I appreciate social problems and climate change are two issues but they are connected. Climate Change worsens poverty (which we're already seeing in global food markets), poverty breeds suffering and social unrest and suffering and social unrest provides endless opportunities for evil-doers.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Stu

The most comprehensive, informed, scientific source on climate change is the IPCC, and they say that the fact that the globe is warming in *unequivocal* and that there is a 90% chance that most of that warming is caused by humans. That is the scientific consensus on climate change.

Even a year ago I would have agreed with you 100%. But I have learned a lot since then, hence I am now neutral on the issue. What I've discovered about the IPCC is also troubling.

The IPCC is a program connected to the United Nations. Whatever your opinion is on the United Nations, it is a political organization. We should be careful in accepting whatever claims they make, because they may be politically influenced. We should be wary of any scientific claims coming from a political organization.

Yes, the panel is made up of real researchers, but that doesn't mean their conclusions in these reports are unbiased.

From Wikipedia:

"Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea's letter writes: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention"

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point of the IPCCs is to publish reports that guide the UN on its policy of fighting climate change. It does not conduct research.

It also does not represent a consensus of climatologists or meteorologists. There is no consensus. Many issues surrounding global warming are still being debated.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Politically, there are a lot of reasons to push global warming laws. Global government is one. And who likes global government? Multinational Corporations.

Multinational corporations love uniform laws across countries. It makes their lives so much easier. They'd rather have a one world government and pay a few more taxes on their products, than have many different governments that they have to lobby individually.

Plus they see the huge opportunities in the "green revolution." Contrary to popular belief, many oil companies are jumping into the alternative energies business. Example: Chevron Energy Solutions - Home

The green business is booming and everyone wants a piece. If you are in the business of providing environment friendly products for people, global warming would be a boon for your company.

So it would makes sense for you to lobby the government for tax breaks and subsidies, and maybe even publish some propaganda to make the issue seem a little more urgent.

Corporations Push Congress on Climate Policy : NPR

"Washington is awash with ideas like this. That's because corporate America believes this Democratic-controlled Congress really is going to act on climate change — maybe not until after the 2008 elections, but the groundwork is being laid now.

"I think they understand that this is a problem that is going to be dealt with," says Eileen Clausen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "They'd like a seat at the table so that they can be part of the solution."

Don't be fooled when you think that it is "Us" vs "The Big, Bad Corporations" on the global warming issue.



Make no mistake. There is huge money on both sides of this debate. So it is up to us to work even harder to sift through the BS and find the truth.

[schola]

Originally Posted by viscapes

This is a common misunderstanding which is why the term "Global Warming" has generally been replaced with "Climate Change" these days. It is possible for "global warming" to produce colder weather. For example, if the Earth's temperature were to increase by 4C the warm North Atlantic current which currently keeps Britain, Ireland and other parts of Europe unusually warm in the winter would likely cease, with winter temperatures in the UK subsequently becoming similar to those in Moscow (London and Moscow are on the same latitude). The fact that "global warming" causes colder weather often confuses people and clouds the issue.

But do you see how that could also be propaganda? Changing the name of the problem to "Climate Change" means that any fluctuation in weather will justify their claims in the minds of people.

You are talking about the Great Conveyor. It is a current of warm water in the Atlantic that funnels warm air from the tropics into wester Europe.

Are you familiar with the Little Ice Age?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Little Ice Age was a cold period that lasted from 1600-1800 - before the industrial revolution - and some theories state that it resulted from a shutdown of the Great Conveyor, or volcanic activity, or an abnormal decrease in sunspot activity; the last of which we are actually experiencing right now too.

You can't ignore the huge effects the sun has on our climate either. The drastic decrease in global temperatures last year corresponds with a dramatic decrease in sunspot activity, almost erasing 100 years of warming.

Now if the sun can affect our climate so dramatically, maybe we should take a step back and evaluate just how much of our climate change is man-made.

Article on sunspots: Read the sunspots

[viscapes]

Hi Schola,

You're absolutely right, there are very natural influences on climate change which do indeed contribute to global warming. The existence of natural influences though doesn't negate the human influence. There is no denying by any unbiased mind that humans have a detrimental influence on our planets climate. This is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community. Add this to the natural variations and taking the sensitive nature of the global eco system into account and our influence becomes very dangerous.

Mother Nature can recover from "wobbles" in the eco-system but large scale changes will have dramatic effects on climate. Adding population growth into this already crowded equation and you can understand why people make such a song and dance about climate change.

I suspect that you, like me, are naturally skeptical of peoples motives in any popular issue and I think we're right to be so in this case. There are far too many companies cynically jumping on the green bandwagon who are distorting and diluting the real point of the argument. Again though, that doesn't negate the point that we are influencing our climate to natures detriment and putting our sensitive living environment dangerously at risk.

Cheers
Paul

[schola]

Originally Posted by viscapes

There is no denying by any unbiased mind that humans have a detrimental influence on our planets climate. This is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community.

In this case, it is not "bias" that is the problem, but a lack of significant depth of knowledge on the issue.

The average person cannot be biased one way or the other on the issue of global warming because they don't know enough to hold an informed opinion. Anything fit for mainstream consumption unfortunately won't provide enough knowledge either.

I know this is the case with many other political and scientific issues as well.

[viscapes]

Originally Posted by schola

In this case, it is not "bias" that is the problem, but a lack of significant depth of knowledge on the issue.

The average person cannot be biased one way or the other on the issue of global warming because they don't know enough to hold an informed opinion. Anything fit for mainstream consumption unfortunately won't provide enough knowledge either.

I know this is the case with many other political and scientific issues as well.

Does it matter? Our influence on the environment is not a matter of opinion it's scientific fact and the debate on whether or not we're influencing climate change is pretty much considered to be over with the conclusion that we are.

Where public opinion does come into play is in coming up with viable, sustainable solutions. In this regards, people do indeed need to be informed of the over-arching issues, understand the consequences of doing nothing and open their mind to the possibilities of change.

My worry, which I suspect you share, is that when we get to this stage people become vulnerable to companies and individuals who have ulterior motives and who promote their agendas on green platforms without any real understanding or regards for green issues. I find that this is where the real problems lie and this is where the bias comes in. People then start to question the whole green issue from the top down and start to dismiss scientific fact and positive social and political encouragement along with the cynical "hanger-on-ers".

[schola]

Originally Posted by viscapes

Does it matter? Our influence on the environment is not a matter of opinion it's scientific fact and the debate on whether or not we're influencing climate change is pretty much considered to be over with the conclusion that we are.

Either you are not listening or you don't understand. It is not scientific fact. Even the very basic principles behind the theory anthropomorphic global warming (or climate change) are contested.

Are we polluting our environment? Yes. Are we causing drastic climate change? Maybe. Maybe not.

1) The connection between C02 and climate change is not conclusive. This is the crux of the entire theory, and it relies on somewhat shaky evidence.

2) Recently a few different organizations reported that global temperatures have actually cooled over the last 10 years, which contradicted just about every computer model prediction that had been made.

3) Outside of the United Nations controlled IPCC, there is hardly a consensus on what is causing climate change.

4) There is not even an agreement over how warming is affecting the planet. Greenland has actually experienced increased ice thickness. The arctic ice is melting but Antarctica is not. This article sums it up nicely: Reason Magazine - Two Sides to Global Warming

In general there is not an agreement on anything in the realm of global warming.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't adopt green technologies or try to reduce our environmental footprint. But we can do these things without unnecessary fear mongering.

[viscapes]

Originally Posted by schola

Either you are not listening or you don't understand. It is not scientific fact. Even the very basic principles behind the theory anthropomorphic global warming (or climate change) are contested.

I think perhaps you're not listening because I hear the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community concluding that we ARE influencing the climate. Our detrimental influence on climate is a theory as much as evolution is a theory. There will always be people in the scientific community who question every scientific theory, that's why science works so well.

But you cannot seriously deny that if you had a room full of 100 randomly chosen scientists educated on earth systems that the majority are of the opinion that we are having a detrimental affect on climate. You'd be absolutely barking to suggest otherwise.

There will never come a day when everyone agrees, that doesn't bring scientific facts into question, it's simply part of the process.

If you're still not convinced, then let's agree to disagree.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by viscapes

I think perhaps you're not listening because I hear the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community concluding that we ARE influencing the climate. Our detrimental influence on climate is a theory as much as evolution is a theory.

This is why I said let's just go green anyways. We've already established that we're causing pollution on SOME level--why not err on the side of caution and just work to rid ourselves of this pollution and lower our output as much as we can anyway? Worst that can happen is that we end up with a slightly cleaner-looking place to live.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

This is why I said let's just go green anyways. We've already established that we're causing pollution on SOME level--why not err on the side of caution and just work to rid ourselves of this pollution and lower our output as much as we can anyway? Worst that can happen is that we end up with a slightly cleaner-looking place to live.

I agree. I like that we still have clean land and fresh air (or at least what appears to be) in some spaces on the globe. Let's keep it that way! If it ends up reversing global warming or restoring the ozone then BONUS. Our planet is too beautiful to be wantonly destroyed.