25 thoughts on “So you think global warming is a myth . . . watch this NASA video”
And I thought God was just hugging us closer …
I believe the real point of contention is the CAUSE of climate change. Nearly everyone agrees that the climate of the earth has changed dramatically over its lifetime. But is it REALLY reasonable to think that the puny, insignificant creature known as modern man has changed the climate of the entire planet over the course of the last 150 years or so by burning fossil fuels? A planet that is give or take 4.5 BILLION years old? 150 out of 4.5 BILLION years is not only completely insignificant, it’s comically insignificant. The only thing more arrogant than thinking mankind has caused climate change is thinking that mankind can somehow fix it. I’m all for keeping the water and air and our general environment clean and this has demonstrably improved (at least here in the US) over the last 50 years. Let’s use our resources like oil, coal and natural gas more effectively and efficiently. Let’s just can the whole sky-is-falling-glaciers-are-melting-polar-bears-are-drowning-and-its-all-our-fault bullshit.
I didn’t realize they had satellite thermal imagery in 1896…
But seriously, yeah the earth is warmer than it was during the “Little Ice Age”. Prove to me that man caused a significant amount of the warming and that we can reverse the warming by doing anything short of nujing India & China and killing off about 90% of the world’s population.
Heck, prove to me that the temperature of the planet was optimal 100 years ago, or that it is optimal now.
Man can adapt to a gradual rise in global temperature. Destroying the world economy and/or throwing money into an endless “green” energy pit won’t help anyone. Then there’s also to possibility that Krakatoa will erupt again, causing global temperatures to temporarily drop, just like it had around the time that video started.
Who needs experts when you have Oliver Klosov? The power here of arguments from ignorance in general and personal incredulity in particular is how it cuts off the need to even consider what causes climate to change, even though the point was ostensibly to remark on such causes. Methinks though he goes not far enough. Compared to 4.5 billion years, six months is even more comically insignificant than 150 years. Therefore the difference between winter and summer must be a treehugger hoax too.
Oliver:
Keep in mind that by burning as much oil, coal, and natural gas as we have (likely nearly 50% of all that has ever existed), we have essentially released the pent-up solar energy of the hundreds of millions of years that it took to form those deposits. In other words, we have essentially let loose as much carbon in the last 150 years as all the plants in the last 150 million years have scrubbed from the atmosphere.
So no, it’s not unreasonable that by releasing that much carbon, we could make a noticeable different on the Earth’s climate.
I don’t think global warming is a myth, I just think that the argument has been politicized to the point where all sides of the argument have lost their credibility.
Tom, where your posiiton (which I believe is correct) runs into trouble with the core of the denial crowd is that you first have to convince them that oil and coal actually are repositories of captured solar energy – and not simply the way the Earth was “created” to begin with – all at once – by God – for our use – 6,000 years ago.
There is a obvious and direct correlation between the dramatic increase use of fossil fuels by man and the warming of the planet. No, it is not a causal link, but the
correlation alone should heed us to do something about it.
If we act, and we are wrong about our evaluation, at least the planet will be more green. If we do nothing, the planet will be brown.
I bow to the prowess of DDCSD in #3! I count 11 strides in his Gish Gallop. In maybe 150 words, that is artistry.
However, there is something to be said for the super-brief “a pox on both your houses” dismissal by Badbenboyenemy. For those who are intent on saying something but too lazy or too uninformed about the topic (bless their hearts), it gives the added benefit of an aura of superiority.
Sure denial is courageous, even artistic at its best. But there can be a lot of appeal for people in the idea of not having to make of their minds plus getting to feel like they are better than those who did. Some people shy away from ‘I know better’ but latch onto ‘I dunno, and that puts me above you.’ And of course the ultimate positive is that it helps maintain the status quo.
You are all wrong and I am right. I don’t think that is debateable.
NDFossilFool – So you say my arguments are from ignorance in general and personal incredulity in particular? As opposed to yours which are clearly well-thought out and reasoned? Here’s the fact; I am not a scientist and neither are you or anyone else making comments on this blog or 99.9% of those making comments across the spectrum on the interwebs. Here’s what I am; a nominally intelligent individual with common sense who questions questionable at best science. For every scientist who KNOWS climate change is caused by the activities of modern man there’s a scientist who KNOWS climate change has nothing to do with the activities of modern man. Arguments on both sides are compelling. Let’s take Tom H’s statement of “fact” (the one that rufusx agrees with) that 50% of all the oil, coal and natural gas that has ever existed has been burned over the last 150 years. That’s a frightening statement that supports the theory he subscribes to. Unfortunately, even a person of nominal intelligence such as myself can see serious fault with the math on that. There is near unanimity in the opinion that we have in these United States of America at least 100 years supply of each of those three resources; coal, natural gas and oil. That’s just the United States and that’s just what we’ve discovered. 70% of the planet is covered with water. MOST of the oil, coal and natural gas we have used has come from land-based operations. Is all the oil, coal and natural gas that has ever existed only under land? Obviously not as a great deal has been discovered under water. So is it REALLY reasonable to think that we’ve already burned up half of the oil, coal and natural gas that ever existed? I don’t think so. I’m not a scientist and neither are any of you. The only things most of us know is what we have read and what we choose to believe. Common sense tells me that neither the folks who believe the world is 6,000 years old or the people who think we’ve nearly wrecked the planet but can somehow fix it are right. The reality, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. So, let’s keep burning oil, natural gas and coal and keep burning it in a cleaner and more efficient fashion as we have year after year for at least the last 40 years. Let’s continue to be better stewards of the land, air and water as we have in better and better ways year after year for at least the last 40 years. Over the course of the next 100 years or so we’ll figure out a better way whether it’s solar or wind or saltwater or bubblegum or cow farts or whatever. The idea of making oil, natural gas and coal difficult to find and extract and artificially expensive through taxation, regulation and legislation in favor of unproven, ineffective energy sources is idiotic. It’s like pissing in the ocean — it might make you feel better but it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. Alternative energy will come — let’s use what we have more effectively and efficiently until it does.
Actually Ollie – I am a scientist – not a climatologist, admittedly, but a scientist none-the-less.
Strike one on you.
And the correct ratio of the scientists that attribute a major portion of recent climate change tothose whp deny any is approximately 98/2 – not 50/50.
In fact; “Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[101] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[6][7]”
Wikipedia Info.
Strike 2.
You’re dangerously close to a slow walk to the dug-out.
So you’re a scientist AND an umpire. Citing Wikipedia as a source certainly calls into question your qualifications as a “scientist”. You may technically qualify to be considered a scientist, but you nor any other scientist has proven any of your arguments. Neither extreme of this issue has any scientific proof, only theory and consensus. Theory and consensus isn’t science and there’s a great deal more positive, measurable and meaningful dialogue and action in a more common sense approach to resolving the real issues. That positive, measurable and meaningful dialogue and action is centered around the common sense approach of continuing to use the resources we have in a continuously improving, more efficient, economic, effective and clean manner rather than the feel-good-save-the-planet approach of hitching our life as we know it to alternative energy sources that simply don’t exist right now. We can’t will these alternative resources to work effectively by taking away the ones we have that DO work. Oil, coal and natural gas run every aspect of our life. We will figure out an alternative and will most certainly do it in most of our lifetimes. We just need to continue to do it with a healthy dose of common sense.
So, the FACT that EVERY international scientific body agrees that the current trend in global arming is due to human activities (based on data and analysis – you know MEASUREMENTS and stuff) you somehow interpret as the classic “it’s only a theory”??? And then go on to say that scientific theory “isn’t science”????
Finally you state that “common sense” (I.E., a “consensus based on ZERO measurements – no data”) is a better approach??
No Ollie – you’re true nature is revealed here. What you are really opposed to is ANYTHING DIFFERENT to the way you are familiar with. ANY CHANGE. You have a truely conservative POV. Status quo must be oreserved at all costs – because you HATE having to change, and anything that changes as well.
I am a scientist.
Oliver,
First, it would help if you could organize your wall of text into paragraphs. Not picking on you here, just saying it would help readability.
Second, when you said “For every scientist who KNOWS climate change is caused by the activities of modern man there’s a scientist who KNOWS climate change has nothing to do with the activities of modern man.” you were making an incorrect statement.
The reality is, the trend of climatologists and scientists who actually study this phenomenon has been increasing in support of man-made climate change. Some of the last figures I read were something like in excess of 98% of them agree with only a few standouts.
So would you be willing to agree your statement / assumption was false?
Also, every major organization on the planet that studies climatology, geology, or earth related sciences agrees with the man-made theory regarding climate change. Yes, every single one. There was one organization (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) who used to disagree, but sometime in 2007 even they had to finally admit the evidence is overwhelming so they basically had to stop denying it. They won’t come out in full support (and based upon who provides them funding you can hardly blame them), but they no longer deny it and rather try to remain neutral (like some journalists who still try to convince the public there is a debate about climate change).
A few organizations that have agreed with the man-made climate stance include:
*The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science
*The National Research Council
*The National Academy of Sciences
*The American Chemical Society
*The American Meteorological Society
*The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*The Royal Meteorological Society
*World Meteorological Organization
*The World Health Organization
*The American Institute of Physics
*The American Physical Society
*The Australian Institute of Physics
*The European Physical Society
*The European Science Foundation
*The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
*The Network of African Science Academies
*The National Science Academies of over 30 nations including all G8 nations, China, India, and many others.
*The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*The Polish Academy of Sciences
*The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
*The Royal Society of New Zealand
*The American Geophysical Union
*The American Society of Agronomy
*The Crop Science Society of America
*The Soil Science Society of America
*The European Geosciences Union
*The European Federation of Geologists
*The Geological Society of America
*The Geological Society of London
*The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* The Environmental Protection Agency
* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
And many, many more.
Bottom line: This is a political debate, not a scientific debate. Some politicians and talk radio pundits have done a fabulous job of convincing the uninformed that there is still some debate on whether or not climate change is real, and whether or not man is one of the primary contributors, but the truth is the scientific community has no such debate.
The only debate within the scientific community is what we can do about it, how quickly we can act, what actions we can take in a short term vs. long term timeframe, and what the impact of alternative energy sources will be.
Finally, I understand it is sometimes fun to pick on people for using Wikipedia, but in the passages rufusx cites you will note there are footnotes that originate in other sources outside of Wikipedia, so your argument on that point is somewhat without merit.
Enjoy your day.
But guys, the facts get in the way of Oliver’s political views.
Once again, this thread proves that this argument has been politicized to the point where it is almost meaningless.
Proving that you’re right and the other person is wrong is more important about what is happening to the environment.
Pretty sad really.
But guys, the facts get in the way of Oliver’s political views.
Well put l3wis…well put.
Oliver Klosov demonstrates the risk of opening with disputing the so-called science. It could have been okay if maintained. But he did not double-down on that attack tack, perhaps because he lacks the weapons – he seems familiar with some talking points but not well-versed.
People came with different facts, and since the pro-status-quo facts were basically abandoned the casual readers can be left confused. They will think: ‘50%-50% split among scientists? 98%-2% split? Must be in the middle of those two extremes, so 74%-26%’. And if they think it is 3-1, then they might start believing there is something to it. Next thing you know they are studying the science, check out Spencer Weart’s ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’, start understanding radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, find that the fundamentals of climate science are relatively simple and quite well-established… What good is that for anyone?
He instead fell back into the fortress of how we are currently hopelessly addicted to and dependent upon fossil fuels, so any climate effects do not matter. Now that argument is great, and status quo is the noble goal we carbon fuel fanatics are looking for. But better in this case to have gone straight to that. The attempt to channel #6 Badbenboyenemy and criticize the extremes does not really work there, and doubtful a perception that everyone else is so critical and mean can salvage the situation. One really ought to pick a path and stay with it to the bitter end. Hey, just like fossil fuels!
I personally believe that fossil fuels picked us! I mean, with the bubbling up out of the ground and catching on fire all by themselves and all that they have been doing since before man came into existance. It is up to us to set them free.
I criticize because I love liberty and our children and their children and want them to live in a world of affordable energy. But the return of Badbenboyenemy shows the power of even, let us say, inelegant defense of the status quo. The mere presence of opposition to all the ivory tower elitists and their science throws the whole thing into question!
All the effort, study, research, and expertise is offset by what is substantively next to nothing. Simply by making it a debate or argument opens the door wide for simple dismissal. If two people disagree, especially if it is harshly, then it is merely a food fight and obviously neither one can be correct.
They have to prove something is and will continue happening, prove why, prove the downside, and ultimately drive a societal response. That is a big structure to build. We do not have to build anything, rather just cast a shadow of doubt that makes their structure look incomplete in some way. And it does not matter how, just that you do.
Pretty beautiful really.
Thanks for that list of liberal organizations. They have to be liberal if they believe in science, right?
NDFossilFuel,
Mind picking apart my supposed straw-men, or does it suffice to use obscure words to defeat an opposing viewpoint?
Answer me two questions: How do we get the developing nations to fall in line with reducing carbon emissions? Are you willing to nuke them if they don’t fall in line?
We have Chinese cities that are growing by 50,000+ people a month. You’re not going to slow them down with some UN agreement. They want what we have, I’m not going to be the one that tells them they can’t have it.
Oh, and one last thing. Do you deny that the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa caused at least six years of lower than expected world-wide temperatures, which just happens to correspond with the base-line for this video? Please answer, I’m trying to figure out which one of us is “anti-science”.
Here’s some info that I found that makes it hard to worry about climate change.
The highest death toll number found in the peer review literature for climate change is 170,000. Currently 3.2 million people die per year from malnutrition because they are too poor to feed themselves. 1.6 million people die each year due to poor water quality. 1.4 million people die due to air pollution. Why? Because they don’t have electricity. They burn various bio-mass and dung in their homes for cooking and heating. Anything we do to increase energy prices will make it worse.
And I thought God was just hugging us closer …
I believe the real point of contention is the CAUSE of climate change. Nearly everyone agrees that the climate of the earth has changed dramatically over its lifetime. But is it REALLY reasonable to think that the puny, insignificant creature known as modern man has changed the climate of the entire planet over the course of the last 150 years or so by burning fossil fuels? A planet that is give or take 4.5 BILLION years old? 150 out of 4.5 BILLION years is not only completely insignificant, it’s comically insignificant. The only thing more arrogant than thinking mankind has caused climate change is thinking that mankind can somehow fix it. I’m all for keeping the water and air and our general environment clean and this has demonstrably improved (at least here in the US) over the last 50 years. Let’s use our resources like oil, coal and natural gas more effectively and efficiently. Let’s just can the whole sky-is-falling-glaciers-are-melting-polar-bears-are-drowning-and-its-all-our-fault bullshit.
I didn’t realize they had satellite thermal imagery in 1896…
But seriously, yeah the earth is warmer than it was during the “Little Ice Age”. Prove to me that man caused a significant amount of the warming and that we can reverse the warming by doing anything short of nujing India & China and killing off about 90% of the world’s population.
Heck, prove to me that the temperature of the planet was optimal 100 years ago, or that it is optimal now.
Man can adapt to a gradual rise in global temperature. Destroying the world economy and/or throwing money into an endless “green” energy pit won’t help anyone. Then there’s also to possibility that Krakatoa will erupt again, causing global temperatures to temporarily drop, just like it had around the time that video started.
Who needs experts when you have Oliver Klosov? The power here of arguments from ignorance in general and personal incredulity in particular is how it cuts off the need to even consider what causes climate to change, even though the point was ostensibly to remark on such causes. Methinks though he goes not far enough. Compared to 4.5 billion years, six months is even more comically insignificant than 150 years. Therefore the difference between winter and summer must be a treehugger hoax too.
Oliver:
Keep in mind that by burning as much oil, coal, and natural gas as we have (likely nearly 50% of all that has ever existed), we have essentially released the pent-up solar energy of the hundreds of millions of years that it took to form those deposits. In other words, we have essentially let loose as much carbon in the last 150 years as all the plants in the last 150 million years have scrubbed from the atmosphere.
So no, it’s not unreasonable that by releasing that much carbon, we could make a noticeable different on the Earth’s climate.
I don’t think global warming is a myth, I just think that the argument has been politicized to the point where all sides of the argument have lost their credibility.
Tom, where your posiiton (which I believe is correct) runs into trouble with the core of the denial crowd is that you first have to convince them that oil and coal actually are repositories of captured solar energy – and not simply the way the Earth was “created” to begin with – all at once – by God – for our use – 6,000 years ago.
There is a obvious and direct correlation between the dramatic increase use of fossil fuels by man and the warming of the planet. No, it is not a causal link, but the
correlation alone should heed us to do something about it.
If we act, and we are wrong about our evaluation, at least the planet will be more green. If we do nothing, the planet will be brown.
I bow to the prowess of DDCSD in #3! I count 11 strides in his Gish Gallop. In maybe 150 words, that is artistry.
However, there is something to be said for the super-brief “a pox on both your houses” dismissal by Badbenboyenemy. For those who are intent on saying something but too lazy or too uninformed about the topic (bless their hearts), it gives the added benefit of an aura of superiority.
Sure denial is courageous, even artistic at its best. But there can be a lot of appeal for people in the idea of not having to make of their minds plus getting to feel like they are better than those who did. Some people shy away from ‘I know better’ but latch onto ‘I dunno, and that puts me above you.’ And of course the ultimate positive is that it helps maintain the status quo.
You are all wrong and I am right. I don’t think that is debateable.
NDFossilFool – So you say my arguments are from ignorance in general and personal incredulity in particular? As opposed to yours which are clearly well-thought out and reasoned? Here’s the fact; I am not a scientist and neither are you or anyone else making comments on this blog or 99.9% of those making comments across the spectrum on the interwebs. Here’s what I am; a nominally intelligent individual with common sense who questions questionable at best science. For every scientist who KNOWS climate change is caused by the activities of modern man there’s a scientist who KNOWS climate change has nothing to do with the activities of modern man. Arguments on both sides are compelling. Let’s take Tom H’s statement of “fact” (the one that rufusx agrees with) that 50% of all the oil, coal and natural gas that has ever existed has been burned over the last 150 years. That’s a frightening statement that supports the theory he subscribes to. Unfortunately, even a person of nominal intelligence such as myself can see serious fault with the math on that. There is near unanimity in the opinion that we have in these United States of America at least 100 years supply of each of those three resources; coal, natural gas and oil. That’s just the United States and that’s just what we’ve discovered. 70% of the planet is covered with water. MOST of the oil, coal and natural gas we have used has come from land-based operations. Is all the oil, coal and natural gas that has ever existed only under land? Obviously not as a great deal has been discovered under water. So is it REALLY reasonable to think that we’ve already burned up half of the oil, coal and natural gas that ever existed? I don’t think so. I’m not a scientist and neither are any of you. The only things most of us know is what we have read and what we choose to believe. Common sense tells me that neither the folks who believe the world is 6,000 years old or the people who think we’ve nearly wrecked the planet but can somehow fix it are right. The reality, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. So, let’s keep burning oil, natural gas and coal and keep burning it in a cleaner and more efficient fashion as we have year after year for at least the last 40 years. Let’s continue to be better stewards of the land, air and water as we have in better and better ways year after year for at least the last 40 years. Over the course of the next 100 years or so we’ll figure out a better way whether it’s solar or wind or saltwater or bubblegum or cow farts or whatever. The idea of making oil, natural gas and coal difficult to find and extract and artificially expensive through taxation, regulation and legislation in favor of unproven, ineffective energy sources is idiotic. It’s like pissing in the ocean — it might make you feel better but it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. Alternative energy will come — let’s use what we have more effectively and efficiently until it does.
Actually Ollie – I am a scientist – not a climatologist, admittedly, but a scientist none-the-less.
Strike one on you.
And the correct ratio of the scientists that attribute a major portion of recent climate change tothose whp deny any is approximately 98/2 – not 50/50.
In fact; “Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[101] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[6][7]”
Wikipedia Info.
Strike 2.
You’re dangerously close to a slow walk to the dug-out.
So you’re a scientist AND an umpire. Citing Wikipedia as a source certainly calls into question your qualifications as a “scientist”. You may technically qualify to be considered a scientist, but you nor any other scientist has proven any of your arguments. Neither extreme of this issue has any scientific proof, only theory and consensus. Theory and consensus isn’t science and there’s a great deal more positive, measurable and meaningful dialogue and action in a more common sense approach to resolving the real issues. That positive, measurable and meaningful dialogue and action is centered around the common sense approach of continuing to use the resources we have in a continuously improving, more efficient, economic, effective and clean manner rather than the feel-good-save-the-planet approach of hitching our life as we know it to alternative energy sources that simply don’t exist right now. We can’t will these alternative resources to work effectively by taking away the ones we have that DO work. Oil, coal and natural gas run every aspect of our life. We will figure out an alternative and will most certainly do it in most of our lifetimes. We just need to continue to do it with a healthy dose of common sense.
So, the FACT that EVERY international scientific body agrees that the current trend in global arming is due to human activities (based on data and analysis – you know MEASUREMENTS and stuff) you somehow interpret as the classic “it’s only a theory”??? And then go on to say that scientific theory “isn’t science”????
Finally you state that “common sense” (I.E., a “consensus based on ZERO measurements – no data”) is a better approach??
No Ollie – you’re true nature is revealed here. What you are really opposed to is ANYTHING DIFFERENT to the way you are familiar with. ANY CHANGE. You have a truely conservative POV. Status quo must be oreserved at all costs – because you HATE having to change, and anything that changes as well.
I am a scientist.
Oliver,
First, it would help if you could organize your wall of text into paragraphs. Not picking on you here, just saying it would help readability.
Second, when you said “For every scientist who KNOWS climate change is caused by the activities of modern man there’s a scientist who KNOWS climate change has nothing to do with the activities of modern man.” you were making an incorrect statement.
The reality is, the trend of climatologists and scientists who actually study this phenomenon has been increasing in support of man-made climate change. Some of the last figures I read were something like in excess of 98% of them agree with only a few standouts.
So would you be willing to agree your statement / assumption was false?
Also, every major organization on the planet that studies climatology, geology, or earth related sciences agrees with the man-made theory regarding climate change. Yes, every single one. There was one organization (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) who used to disagree, but sometime in 2007 even they had to finally admit the evidence is overwhelming so they basically had to stop denying it. They won’t come out in full support (and based upon who provides them funding you can hardly blame them), but they no longer deny it and rather try to remain neutral (like some journalists who still try to convince the public there is a debate about climate change).
A few organizations that have agreed with the man-made climate stance include:
*The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science
*The National Research Council
*The National Academy of Sciences
*The American Chemical Society
*The American Meteorological Society
*The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*The Royal Meteorological Society
*World Meteorological Organization
*The World Health Organization
*The American Institute of Physics
*The American Physical Society
*The Australian Institute of Physics
*The European Physical Society
*The European Science Foundation
*The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
*The Network of African Science Academies
*The National Science Academies of over 30 nations including all G8 nations, China, India, and many others.
*The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*The Polish Academy of Sciences
*The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
*The Royal Society of New Zealand
*The American Geophysical Union
*The American Society of Agronomy
*The Crop Science Society of America
*The Soil Science Society of America
*The European Geosciences Union
*The European Federation of Geologists
*The Geological Society of America
*The Geological Society of London
*The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* The Environmental Protection Agency
* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
And many, many more.
Bottom line: This is a political debate, not a scientific debate. Some politicians and talk radio pundits have done a fabulous job of convincing the uninformed that there is still some debate on whether or not climate change is real, and whether or not man is one of the primary contributors, but the truth is the scientific community has no such debate.
The only debate within the scientific community is what we can do about it, how quickly we can act, what actions we can take in a short term vs. long term timeframe, and what the impact of alternative energy sources will be.
Finally, I understand it is sometimes fun to pick on people for using Wikipedia, but in the passages rufusx cites you will note there are footnotes that originate in other sources outside of Wikipedia, so your argument on that point is somewhat without merit.
Enjoy your day.
But guys, the facts get in the way of Oliver’s political views.
Once again, this thread proves that this argument has been politicized to the point where it is almost meaningless.
Proving that you’re right and the other person is wrong is more important about what is happening to the environment.
Pretty sad really.
But guys, the facts get in the way of Oliver’s political views.
Well put l3wis…well put.
Oliver Klosov demonstrates the risk of opening with disputing the so-called science. It could have been okay if maintained. But he did not double-down on that attack tack, perhaps because he lacks the weapons – he seems familiar with some talking points but not well-versed.
People came with different facts, and since the pro-status-quo facts were basically abandoned the casual readers can be left confused. They will think: ‘50%-50% split among scientists? 98%-2% split? Must be in the middle of those two extremes, so 74%-26%’. And if they think it is 3-1, then they might start believing there is something to it. Next thing you know they are studying the science, check out Spencer Weart’s ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’, start understanding radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, find that the fundamentals of climate science are relatively simple and quite well-established… What good is that for anyone?
He instead fell back into the fortress of how we are currently hopelessly addicted to and dependent upon fossil fuels, so any climate effects do not matter. Now that argument is great, and status quo is the noble goal we carbon fuel fanatics are looking for. But better in this case to have gone straight to that. The attempt to channel #6 Badbenboyenemy and criticize the extremes does not really work there, and doubtful a perception that everyone else is so critical and mean can salvage the situation. One really ought to pick a path and stay with it to the bitter end. Hey, just like fossil fuels!
I personally believe that fossil fuels picked us! I mean, with the bubbling up out of the ground and catching on fire all by themselves and all that they have been doing since before man came into existance. It is up to us to set them free.
I criticize because I love liberty and our children and their children and want them to live in a world of affordable energy. But the return of Badbenboyenemy shows the power of even, let us say, inelegant defense of the status quo. The mere presence of opposition to all the ivory tower elitists and their science throws the whole thing into question!
All the effort, study, research, and expertise is offset by what is substantively next to nothing. Simply by making it a debate or argument opens the door wide for simple dismissal. If two people disagree, especially if it is harshly, then it is merely a food fight and obviously neither one can be correct.
They have to prove something is and will continue happening, prove why, prove the downside, and ultimately drive a societal response. That is a big structure to build. We do not have to build anything, rather just cast a shadow of doubt that makes their structure look incomplete in some way. And it does not matter how, just that you do.
Pretty beautiful really.
Thanks for that list of liberal organizations. They have to be liberal if they believe in science, right?
NDFossilFuel,
Mind picking apart my supposed straw-men, or does it suffice to use obscure words to defeat an opposing viewpoint?
Answer me two questions: How do we get the developing nations to fall in line with reducing carbon emissions? Are you willing to nuke them if they don’t fall in line?
We have Chinese cities that are growing by 50,000+ people a month. You’re not going to slow them down with some UN agreement. They want what we have, I’m not going to be the one that tells them they can’t have it.
Oh, and one last thing. Do you deny that the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa caused at least six years of lower than expected world-wide temperatures, which just happens to correspond with the base-line for this video? Please answer, I’m trying to figure out which one of us is “anti-science”.
Here’s some info that I found that makes it hard to worry about climate change.
The highest death toll number found in the peer review literature for climate change is 170,000. Currently 3.2 million people die per year from malnutrition because they are too poor to feed themselves. 1.6 million people die each year due to poor water quality. 1.4 million people die due to air pollution. Why? Because they don’t have electricity. They burn various bio-mass and dung in their homes for cooking and heating. Anything we do to increase energy prices will make it worse.