Do you believe in Global Warming?

bmah · Nov 20, 2008 2:55 AM

You can't jump to that conclusion, saphira, since you didn't really give an opinion on the actual data that states otherwise. Adverse weather is one of the many products of "global warming". What about everything else I mentioned? We need to take a closer analysis instead of just cherry-picking certain data.

ratchet · Nov 20, 2008 4:59 AM

bmah wrote:

The Medieval Warming Period is an interstadial, which is basically a mini warming period. This is part of the natural cycle of glacial and deglaciation, but it does not explain the sudden spike in CO2 emissions.
In addition to this cycle, there are local processes that can modify temperature change. For example, the lack of sunspots in a given time period may help result in a cooling period. So a small dip in temperatures in the 40s-70s doesn't really make a strong argument against the entire issue of global warming.
And of course the earth may very well go into another ice age since I did mention that this is a natural cycle.

Don't worry, your right, i actually worded it wong. I meant that the sudden spike in C02 CAN NOT be blamed on the Medievil warming period. Humans have defiently caused this spike! And yes, lack of sunspots can cause cooling, but i was mainly saying that even though C02 increased, temperature did not. Besides, your now blaming the temperature on sunspots, before you were blaming himans, make up your mind, it can not be both. And if you say both, that is pretty blind. Basicly people who say both are like "Well i don't care about the evidence that sunspots and temperature are in sync, it can be humans too!"
FAIL!

Ah, yes, the Little Ice Age. We've well recovered from that small period, which lasted for a few centuries until the beginning of the 1900s. But you're missing the point. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of pollution and (adverse weather) exponentially increased. We're not worried about the differences in climate of the past; we're currently concerned on the rate of climate change to a warming trend.

Yeah, i know, but i was simply saying that all the glaciers melting and stuff can simply be explained by the fact that we are recovering from the little ice age.

Also, please don't pull information out of your...well yeah, since there is no evidence that polar bear populations are increasing - either that, or your sources are very questionable in comparison to 99% of the data out there on the well-being of polar bears.

Alright fine, i really did pull that fact from nowhere, i simply heard it somewhere and thought it was true. But yeah, the sudden decrease of polar bears can not really be blamed on global warming, seeing, as i said, the earth has been much hotter and polar bears have survived. This may be caused by other things such as overfishing or something.....

And most of the fires are caused by humans, at least in an indirect way. For example, humans are increasing the chance for adverse weather such as the increase of storm systems, and that increases the amount of lightning and hence the chances of a lightning strike on a forest.

There's no proof that humans cause more storms, or that there's been an un natural amount of storms. And i think we all know that almost everyone is against delibrate fires

You're right that water vapor comprises about 95% of all greenhouse gases - without it, the Earth would be cold and lifeless. But you've failed to mention the varying effectiveness of these gases on the greenhouse effect. According to wikipedia, the large percentage of H20 in the air causes 36-70% of the greenhouse effect. According to your data, CO2 comprises only ~0.54% of all greenhouse gases but it is responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect alone!

the greenhouse effect, like global warming, is not proven.
And on that fact again. Some global warming scientists say that the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is amplified similarly to when "you inject yourself with a harmfull disease, even a small amount, it spreads" A what? Gasses and diseases are 2 completely different things, diseases contain cells, living things, and so that is how they devide. gasses, which are not alive, can not do this. They dospread out, but not multiply. And if C02 multiplies so much, why doesn't every gas multiply like C02!
some times i wobder if Some scientists just say the first thing that comes to their heads.

Again, you're missing the point. Don't refer to past examples of a warmer global climate as indication that humans aren't responsible; we're talking about the rate of warming here. The warming of the earth is accelerating at an unbelievable pace, and the spike is right when the Industrial Revolution occurs - wonder why.
And good for you that you recycle!

There have been sudden spikes like that at many different times, and again, there is no evidence that C02 even CAUSES global warming. I'm afraid it is just a coincidence. Besides, i was talking about an entirely different thing there

That is the point. Global warming is real, and hyping people up is a quicker way of having people in the right mindset. Al Gore just used a common but effective tactic by dramatizing the potential effects of global warming.

Still, no proof that it is real

Overused, but really ineffective argument. You can use this kind of tactic to an argument you make on any subject.

Just because it's "overused" doesn't make it wrong

The activists back up their support from the findings made by scientists. It's really easy to conceive activists as just annoying pests who do nothing but complaining (well according to the economists' and politicians' standpoint), but injecting the issues into politics is a very effective and sometimes only way of getting the world's attention.

Yes, they make their judgements from one eyed "scientists" like Al Gore not to mention they are mainly greenies who try and find every way to pick on the Human rae for everything

To sum things up, you do mention a lot of instances in which there are apparent shortcomings to the global warming issue, but you gotta look into the cogs and wheels first - are these facts really supportive? Logic? Reasoning behind certain proposals on the issue? etc.
Do some more research please. You'll also save me an hour from typing this.

I have done much research, and i've already come to the conclusion that human made global warming is not real. There's alot of things in the Global warming theory that also sound far feteched, and all of the things that Al Gore has said in the inconveient truth i have already disproven.

heres the most recent graph showing temperature in the last 1000 years. the "hockey stick" in al gore's movie has since been proven wrong.

here you can see 5 different occasions where the weather was warmer than it is now, and they have obviously spiked much more acutely than our spike.

bmah · Nov 20, 2008 5:53 AM

I'll respond to the stuff you've addressed later, but for now, could you provide the direct link for the source of the graph please? (not your photobucket link) thx

ratchet · Nov 20, 2008 6:07 AM

I got it from this site:
http://oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
http://oism.org/pproject/

The site which has 30, 000 scientists agreeing that global warming is fake!

bmah · Nov 20, 2008 8:34 AM

(I'll still review your previous post later)

Just taking a quick look at the site in which you've got your info from, the reputable Sierra Club foundation mentions that the whole petition was a hoax back in 1998. The whole Global Warming Petition Project is from a "little-known" institution known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM); the article which you've linked is apparently not even a genuine, peer-reviewed article! The purpose of the petition (and the pseudo-science article) was to deliberately mislead people to increase support for the OISM in going against the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, the information you've gave me ratchet is not factually supported but rather is false data for the purposes of simply gaining political leverage!

i.e. your graph (and any info you've referenced from it) means jack

---> http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr … s.html#cc2

lesson 1: make sure the research you're making is from reputable resources

Phoenix_Flyer · Nov 20, 2008 9:14 AM

Wow, you got kicked then, ratchet....

And quite frankly people demanding proof are asking something that people often can't give. Can you scientifically prove that gravity exists? True, things fall back to earth, but how can you prove that that isn't magic rather than gravity? Can you prove Climate Change isn't real?
The average world temperature is increasing. It has just been an Ice Age for God's sake! True we don't know whether or not the temperatures will drop again, we have nothing detailed to compare this Ice Age with. But noone can deny that the increses in temperature recently have been quicker than they have been in the past. What this means for our future we can only guess. But if the guesses are anything to go by, it doesn't look good. People for or against 'Global Warming' are just guessing. I think it is better to just go along with the fact that Global Warming is real. If they are right then it may save lives and prepare us for harder times. But if those against Global Warming are right then its a case or nothing lost nothing gained. Better safe than sorry if you as me.

bmah · Nov 20, 2008 9:35 AM

Yeah, I'd stick with the precautionary principle.

ratchet · Nov 20, 2008 11:10 AM

bmah wrote:

(I'll still review your previous post later)
Just taking a quick look at the site in which you've got your info from, the reputable Sierra Club foundation mentions that the whole petition was a hoax back in 1998. The whole Global Warming Petition Project is from a "little-known" institution known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM); the article which you've linked is apparently not even a genuine, peer-reviewed article! The purpose of the petition (and the pseudo-science article) was to deliberately mislead people to increase support for the OISM in going against the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, the information you've gave me ratchet is not factually supported but rather is false data for the purposes of simply gaining political leverage!
i.e. your graph (and any info you've referenced from it) means jack

---> http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr … s.html#cc2
lesson 1: make sure the research you're making is from reputable resources

Thankyou Bmah for that information, but the general information i have gotton was in fact, not from that site, and from other sources. The graph was the only thing from that site, but that graph has also appeared on other sites, and yes, the "hockey stick" has been proven wrong.
Eh, this IS a pretty convincing site, somebody should really take action against it because it had me and many other people fooled.
But people should ALSO take action against the Outdated Hockey stick graph which has been appearing in every global warming support site known to man, which is misleading many more people. But still, there are many scientists that do not support global warming, even if that site is fake. But the media does not like to talk about that side of the argument, and they are very one eyed.

Wow, you got kicked then, ratchet....

.......*grumbles*

And quite frankly people demanding proof are asking something that people often can't give. Can you scientifically prove that gravity exists? True, things fall back to earth, but how can you prove that that isn't magic rather than gravity? Can you prove Climate Change isn't real?

Can you prove it is real?

The average world temperature is increasing. It has just been an Ice Age for God's sake!

Exaculy, That is why Glaciers are melting, the Water levels are slightly rising and such.

But noone can deny that the increses in temperature recently have been quicker than they have been in the past.

From the graphs i've seen, there have been much more rapid spikes than the ones we saw in the last 100 years.

What this means for our future we can only guess. But if the guesses are anything to go by, it doesn't look good. People for or against 'Global Warming' are just guessing.

Same goes for the people for it

I think it is better to just go along with the fact that Global Warming is real. If they are right then it may save lives and prepare us for harder times. But if those against Global Warming are right then its a case or nothing lost nothing gained. Better safe than sorry if you as me.

That is true, People are making lots of money off this, lie or not and in some ways, is bringing the earth's people closer together. But that doesn't mean i can't prove it wrong.
I mainly created this topic to think of more rebuts and points for my upcomming speech, so otherwise i would not of created this, seeing the contraversy and "no end" to this debate.
Personally, i do not like bringing up this debate because usually i'm very outnumbered.

saphira17 · Nov 20, 2008 5:26 PM

bmah, I tried to understand everything that has been said here, but honestly, I'm not too concerned, so therefore, I don't look at all of the information. I'm not too concerned about the weather changing and stuff. There are WAY more important things going on where I am that I need to be concerned about, whether it may be our nation, or personal junk... But I am not going to try to pursue this subject because, like I said, I don't know much about it, nor do I really wanna concern myself with it.

bmah · Nov 20, 2008 10:46 PM

Well it depends on how you see things. In the short term, and especially these days, the US economy is what the majority of the people are concerned about. There are a lot of issues we have to deal with, and long-term issues are usually difficult to conceive or to be taken seriously until something wrong happens and then it's too late. Global warming is one such example. But people tend to look only towards satisfying their immediate wants and needs, so your thoughts on this issue is normal. Believe what you want, but it all derives from your overall attitude of things.

@ratchet: Who cares if you're outnumbered? It's great to have this debate; that's what a good argument is all about. Also, thanks for reading everything I wrote - I don't feel like I'm wasting my breath.

Fletch_Talon · Nov 21, 2008 1:03 AM

just something i heard secondhand, but wasnt there something in that inconveniant truth documentary about how the scientists supposedly doing research which disproves global warming are funded by petrol companies?

if so, id take the word of a one eyed greenie over someone with an obvious bias

of course even if thats not true lets consider this

if youre in an office building and someone runs into the room screaming that the building is on fire, do you sit there and tell them that theres really no evidence for it? or do you take their word for it and get out of there?

believing in global warming and doing something about it can only yield good results, a healthier environment and stopping what is potentially a world damaging event

PS. for the record, humans are to blame for most crap that happens in the world, to say otherwise is somewhat ridiculous, it will pretty muchalways come down to hunting/deforestation/polution

raven · Nov 21, 2008 1:55 PM

I believe in climate change, rather than global warming. I think the world’s weather will be more erratic, extreme and unpredictable in addition to rising temperatures, rather than just rising temperatures... and I think that humans are contributing to it, regardless of whether nature is also helping or not. There is natural variation in the Earth’s weather and this could be a factor in the changing climate, but I believe human-induced climate change is also contributing significantly.
Evidence of changing climate and rising temperatures includes the melting of large glaciers...
(more before/after pics here.)

...and the recent opening of the northwest passage, in the Arctic ocean just north of Canada (link and link).

bmah wrote:

Yeah, I'd stick with the precautionary principle.

I agree, better safe than sorry, like what you and Phoenix_Flyer said. And even if it turns out humans aren’t causing the climate to change or warm up, there are other benefits to be reaped from trying to reduce our emissions/pollution levels and having a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle... like cleaner air and money savings and less pressure on natural resources and stuff.

Fletch_Talon wrote:

just something i heard secondhand, but wasnt there something in that inconveniant truth documentary about how the scientists supposedly doing research which disproves global warming are funded by petrol companies?

Of course. Science can be used to justify or 'prove' anything. It is far from being a neutral field free from political or corporate influence.

saphira17 · Nov 21, 2008 4:38 PM

I know I said I wasn't gonna pursue this, but what precautionaries exactly would you take against "global warming" (climate change...)? It's good to recycle, and be more environmentally friendly, but even so, you can't make the whole world do it... So we sit here debating the point, yet what can we change if it truly were to happen? How could we keep safe? If you believe this is going to happen based on your "proof" what would you do? If it is something that needs to be taken seriously...

bmah · Nov 22, 2008 6:11 AM

The main way of taking precaution is to advocate sustainable development, which is, according to the Brundtland Commission, "Development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This is obviously a really general statement that can have different meanings depending on who you're talking to (an ecologist, economist, etc.). However, reaching sustainable development is a goal that would be a win-win situation, so there's nothing to lose from trying to achieve this.

You can't make everyone change their attitude right away, so the government would have to incorporate some environmental tactics in their policies. For example, if the government decided to raise the price of fruits by taxing imports, you'd have to pay more, but the government can compromise this by reducing your income taxes. In other words, you don't theoretically gain or lose money, but the usage of tax money is "shifted" towards a more environmentally-friendly way. In this case, you're fully accounting for the cost of the fruits you buy (e.g. harvesting fruit, using gas for transportation of fruit to the markets, etc.). This is just one example of the many ways the government can try to change attitudes. There's a lot of psychology studies into making the right government policies. The change is slow, but possible.

saphira17 · Nov 22, 2008 11:58 PM

That's great, but that doesn't exactly solve the problem, nor help us prepair for it. And I just found out today some things about global warming, such as that the average temperature has gone down 2 degrees in the last 8 years. And when the scientist, or whatever, take their weather estimations trying to predict global warming, they get their sources from air strips!!! Okay, what happens when a plane goes up? Friction, and friction is hot... not to mention that pavement retains alot of heat. So that's not a reliable source of information. And where I get mine is.. It's not the net either.

bmah · Nov 23, 2008 7:55 AM

Can't comment about the air strip thing specifically, because I don't know anything about that. I do know that there are weather stations all around the world that measure temperature - given data over a long time, that's a fine way of making a prediction. Also, there are several ways of measuring temperature, airplanes being one of them. There are more common ways of taking measurement of the weather, such as radiosondes (lifted by weather balloons), satellites from space, radars on weather stations, etc. I think your air strip example is a pretty specific method and not of common usage, which is my guess. And 8 years is way too short of a time frame to use as a reliable indication of climate trend. That's short-term for sure.

Sustainable development is an ongoing thing, and it's supposed to help change our attitudes about the environment. I don't know to what extent the damage we've done to the environment can be reversed, so don't expect a definite way to "solve" the problem. Just having the future generations be more responsible is the best way to be prepared. Care to provide any other ideas?

saphira17 · Nov 23, 2008 7:03 PM

I CAN'T provide ideas, hence why I was asking... I really don't know much about this subject... But I am looking into it more. I realize 8 years isn't a long time, nor is two degrees a big temperature change, but it does go against global warming. And it seems to me pretty much all of the information people have about global warming is scarce. So it can neither be 100% proven or denied. It's one of those things that has to be taken into consideration for people who "believe" it will happen. And not everyone is going to believe it. And we shouldn't leave the next generation to solve our screw ups. Nor can we expect them to be more responsible about the environment when we as a generation can't even handle it. It's good what your saying about getting attitudes to change, and I agree there needs to be a big attitude adjustment.. but it still is not ever going to get everyone agreeing.

ratchet · Nov 25, 2008 9:00 AM

I guess even if global warming isn't real (which it isn't), reducing Carbon Emissions is a win win situation. This will make sure nothing drastic will happen (which it wont) to the environment. this will also bring countries closer together, helping each other stop "global warming." Not to mention, it creates alot of stories and jobs for people including journalists, beurocrats, the media and others. more jobs, more money in the economy and the amount of money spent on ad campaigns and stuff like beurocrats will be balanced out.

If Global warming is a scam (which it is) it's a *bleep* good one, and you can see why they would do it

And looked at that site, bmah, and most of those things are defiently not the things i've said against global warming
1. Well, if the earth warmed up normally, no it wouldn't have any major concequences, of cource if the earth warmed up by 10 degrees it would have serious concequences, but there is no proof that this is going to happen, so this is just really a trick question
2.Apparently, the reasearch and petition by the oism is a fake, but the graphs and documents on the site is right, so even if the signiatures are real or not, it makes up a much more convincing argument than any of the IPCC's documents.
3. The "hockey stick" graph there has since been proven wrong and there has been 5 seperate occasions in the last 3000 years where it has been warmer than before. Also notice that the grey areas and some of the blue areas have not been taken into account.
4. it wont be caused by humans anyway, so there's nothing we can do
5. Eh, i never said that the planet being warmer would be "nice" anyway
6. I never said this either, just that some of the graphs are wrong
7. It is not, and C)2 has been proven to come AFTER Temperature not before or "causing" temperature
8. I never said this, i do believe the earth is warming up, just that it's not caused by humans
9. Some evidence says solar, some not. But there are more things that cause temperature difference than the sun
10. This might be true, but yes, people ARE making money off this, not to mention exadurating it will get people more scared and will hence support it more.

bmah · Nov 25, 2008 9:04 AM

Lol, I like how adamant you are in making your stand. Anyways, I could go on, but really, the subject's been kind of exhausted by now.

ratchet · Nov 25, 2008 12:10 PM

the speech is on thursday, i just wrote it up. it's like 4 pages long. it will probably be too long

ratchet · Nov 27, 2008 11:18 AM

Hey! I came third, and won a $20 EB games gift Voucher!
I probably came third cause my speech was way too long and i had to cut alot out before and during the speech.
But the funny thing was that the guy who came first was actually talking about climate change and supporting it. Even though he got PWNED because i disproved his points, he still won because of "the way he presented it"
He probably only won because he's a cute year 7 asian kid with a cute voice and a left wing speech topic.
Owell, i'm happy it's over, and I can get off this subject!

Hail The Ice Dragon · Nov 28, 2008 3:23 PM

In May last year, The Sydney Morning Herald breathlessly reported that climate change had reduced the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, claiming that as a result global warming would accelerate even faster than previously thought.

The story was picked up and repeated in a number of different journals around the region.

But this week the CSIRO suggested the exact opposite. "The new study suggests that Southern Ocean currents, and therefore the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, have not changed in recent decades," it said. This time the story got no coverage in the SMH, and was run on the ABC's website as evidence the Southern Ocean was adapting to climate change.

CSIRO oceanographer Stuart Rintoul, a co-author of the study, said it did not disprove global warming and he did not believe its lack of an alarmist tone was responsible for the poor coverage.

But the story is being pointed out as an example of media bias on global warming. Critics argue that the ABC and the Fairfax media are the worst offenders.

ABC board member Keith Windschuttle said yesterday the national broadcaster was in breach of its charter to provide a diversity of views. "The ABC and the Fairfax press rarely provide an opportunity for global warming sceptics to put their view," Mr Windschuttle said. "The science is not settled.

"We are seeing an increasing number of people with impeccable scientific backgrounds questioning part or whole of the story. I don't believe the ABC has been reflecting the genuine diversity of the debate. Under its own act, the ABC is required to produce a diversity of views."

Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics, said there was no doubt Windschuttle was correct.

"With very few exceptions, press reporters commenting on global warming are either ignorant of the science matters involved, or wilfully determined to propagate warming hysteria because that fits their personal world view, or are under editorial direction to focus the story around the alarmist headline grab -- and often all three," Professor Carter said.

National Climate Centre former head William Kininmonth said coverage of global warming had been hysterical and was getting worse, with a large public relations effort inundating the media with information from the alarmist side.

bmah · Nov 28, 2008 5:52 PM

I was just watching a documentary on how some notably influential people got the Bush administration and a lot of the media suddenly to undermine the whole global warming situation. Sounds like ratchet would also hop onto the same boat.
Also, the documentary stated something to the effect that "ignoring the global warming crisis would be as costly as WW1, WW2, and the Great Depression combined."
The documentary later interviewed a whole bunch of people who used to work for the Bush administration, one of them who later got a high-position job at Exxon (you can probably tell what he would believe in).

ratchet · Nov 29, 2008 6:57 AM

Yeah, it is quite obvious that the media is biased about global warming, especially our ABC.

bmah · Nov 29, 2008 7:28 AM

Well the point there is that the media is easily swayed by groups and individuals who are very vocal about what they want to get across. In this case, one of the most prominent methods of trying to undermine the whole global warming situation is to question on the accuracy and certainty of scientific data and findings on this issue. I've also noticed that opponents of the global warming belief in this thread used this kind of reasoning as well. "How can we be certain this proves anything", etc.

#26 Nov 20, 2008 2:55 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#27 Nov 20, 2008 4:59 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#28 Nov 20, 2008 5:53 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#29 Nov 20, 2008 6:07 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#30 Nov 20, 2008 8:34 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#31 Nov 20, 2008 9:14 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#32 Nov 20, 2008 9:35 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#33 Nov 20, 2008 11:10 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#34 Nov 20, 2008 5:26 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#35 Nov 20, 2008 10:46 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#36 Nov 21, 2008 1:03 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#37 Nov 21, 2008 1:55 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#38 Nov 21, 2008 4:38 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#39 Nov 22, 2008 6:11 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#40 Nov 22, 2008 11:58 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#41 Nov 23, 2008 7:55 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#42 Nov 23, 2008 7:03 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#43 Nov 25, 2008 9:00 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#44 Nov 25, 2008 9:04 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#45 Nov 25, 2008 12:10 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#46 Nov 27, 2008 11:18 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#47 Nov 28, 2008 3:23 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#48 Nov 28, 2008 5:52 PM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#49 Nov 29, 2008 6:57 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

#50 Nov 29, 2008 7:28 AM

Re: Do you believe in Global Warming?

Board footer