Quote:
|
Originally Posted by robot_parade
Except for the fact that 'it' (global warming/climate change) whathaveyou is accepted by most climatologists as the most likely description of what is and will happen over the next century or so. Right now, I'm aware of no reputable agencies or groups that are both knowledgeable on matters related to climatology *and* deny that man-made climate change is a reality.
They could be wrong. But we should base our policies on the best available scientific evidence we have now, not on hoping it's wrong, or believing it's wrong based upon ideology.
|
I don't think I have been clear in what I'm talking about. The models can not predict PAST climates. As in you put in the numbers at some point in the past and it can't get us to the present. You can't work backwards to recreate the warm period in the 30's or the cooling in the 70's. The data just doesn't work, why should I trust it to tell me what it will be 100 years from now when it can't show what it was 100 years ago?
Quote:
|
"Human-influenced climate change" is probably the most accurate descriptive phrase. "Global warming" is also in a sense accurate, but gives laypeople the wrong impression, ie that "we're all going to burn up!" or that everywhere on earth is going to get hotter. The reality, as always, is much more nuanced.
|
The argument is still around CO2, a greenhouse gas, causing warming. If the argument was cutting down a forest causes a drought or the heat island affects of cities then I'd acquiesce there are arguments to be made there about local and perhaps global climate effects we are unaware of. The solutions presented are about reducing greenhouse emission, mainly CO2 (for some reason CH4 doesn't get much real press). The new concept may be climate change, but the real issue is still global warming.
Quote:
|
Second, as you point out, climate has always changed, and, for as long as we've been around, we've been effected by it (usually in a negative way over the short term). For nearly as long, we've *affected* climate to one degree or another. Now, we're starting to be able to measure, study, and understand those changes. At the same time, the degree to which we're affecting our environment is increasing dramatically.
|
While locally we can affect the climate and environment and have done so since the beginning of time, I think its a bit extreme to claim any climate changes in the past 10,000 years or so had anything to do with human activity. For instance I doubt the Roman warm period or dark ages cold period, which were global trends not just European ones, had anything to do with human activities.
Quote:
|
Fair enough. Angry man is damned angry. And, while you may think it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, it's the same damn thing. People don't want to believe that we are causing climate change (or acid rain, or that they evolved from primates, or that the earth is round, etc), so they stick by their guns, no matter what evidence they're presented with. And I see it almost entirely associated with 'the right wing', whatever that is. It's unhealthy, and I'm tired of putting up with it politely.
|
Well thats not me, I started my research career as a youngster working on acid rains effect on annelids. Its are a lot of people out there who are skeptics on global warming who do not fit your rant either. My skepticism is based purely on the science, or more importantly lack there of showing any definitive link. A best or worst, we have a correlation and an incomplete understanding.
Quote:
|
Fair enough. I don't particularly want to debate global warming (again), it's not going to go anywhere. But I see it as part and parcel of a much larger problem of denying science and evidence in favor of one's chosen ideology.
|
Are you a conservative? Yes I'm making a joke, I know your politics based on your stance
So my stance is based on ideology and yours on science? Do you think at 22, working in a lab dealing with PCB contamination, and taking classes on Great Lakes water ecology and seminars in Evolution, I came to the conclusion that global warming based on human activities was apparently untrue based on my ideology?
Quote:
|
Most of those bizarre beliefs aren't confined to 'the left', AFAIK - aside from perhaps the extreme behaviours of PeTA and 'GWB did it' as a branch of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They also don't have a dramatic effect on public policy like the anti-climate-change thing, various other anti-environmentalism things, or the anti-evolution thing. The truly harmful stuff seems (to me) to be mostly confined to the right.
|
Show me someone into power crystals I'll show you a left winger. But seriously angry man doesn't belong in this debate. I don't support ID, I think Ben Stein lost his marbles at some point, and I don't worry about climate change stone wallers because I think they are right even if its for the wrong reasons, I'm sure you don't mind those who think we have upset mother earth being on your side either.
Quote:
|
Another good point. I don't want to try to hijack your thread, but I did want to point out how I felt. Maybe sometime when I have more time and energy, I'll start a thread about which crazies are more widespread and harmful. For now, please accept my apologies if I've gone too far offtopic.
|
More than accepted. I just want you to get from this that I and many others like me do NOT approach this from an ideological stance, but from a scientific one. We do not see data that is convincing.