what happened to global warming pun intended

[Mahonri]

For some folks, science is religion.

They can't seem to explain why Greenland had NO ICE in the 13th century and why they also had productive farms. Only now that we had a slight warming trend from 1980 through 2004 those old farm sights are being uncovered during the summer by melting ice.

Was it caused by carbon emissions? Hardly. That is a joke.

I took physics in college. I know that this global warming reporting is all falsehood. Any data over the past two years that points that way is a bunch of hooey.

I can't believe all of the gullible people including supposed scientists.

I also have seen algores folks manipulate data to support his hooey theory... and that's all it is folks... a theory. No truth to it at all.

 

[greyfields]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding demonstrated in these responses. The global warming theory analyzes CO2 loading in the atmosphere, caused by emissions. Comparing todays CO2 loading to all historical data, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than during any other period since life evolved. And not by a little bit, but by a vast amount. The 'historical data' is taken from artctic and antarctic ice cores which trap atompsheric gasses within the structure and the data spans millions of years.

Knowing where our CO2 levels are today and comparing it with places like Venus, it's projected that we are approaching a run-away greenhouse gas catastrophe which will kil all life on earth.

The observation of historical climate temperatures versus today isn't the basis for the theory as some of you are suggesting. It's simply a clue they are using to see how much the CO2 levels are affecting average global temperatures.

With all that said, does anyone 'believe' the theory? Belief is a strong word. I truly hope scientists are correct on this one, sicne they have invested a lot of social capital trying (often in vain) to get the message out. If they turn out to be wrong (and we may not know in our lifetime), I"m afraid people will stop listening to science.

In the end, I trust science over politics, custom and religion.

 

[Mahonri]

I'm waiting for science to explain why Elephants lived in northern Canada and Alaska. Or why it was much, much warmer in northern climes in the past. I wonder how the poor polar bears survived?

Seems like they can't do it.

 

[Reinbeau]

Quote:
Which is my whole point, in a nutshell. And with that lack of belief will come the lack of listening to any reason about why we shouldn't pollute.

It's a false analogy.

In the end, I trust science over politics, custom and religion.

I do, too. True science, not politically driven malarkey designed to corral us into tighter and tighter controls over our freedoms and our way of life.

Mahonri, you and I are on the exact same page!

 

[emilyfrancis]

I'm confused how so many of you are so certain that climate change is a falsehood without being scientists yourselves.
The anecdotes on weather patterns being cold or wet this winter mean nothing in the scheme of comprehensive climate change.
You're right to be unsure about how the climate will shift because that will vary from region to region. Climate change will mean extremes in moisture and temperate in places.
There have been extremes in the climate in the past, the concern is that we've escalated these changes and there will be impacts on human life and our ability to provide food and land for ourselves.

 

[Reinbeau]

Believe it or not, emilyfrancis, not every scientist out there is onboard with global warming, and those scientists are the ones that make the most sense to me. They are conscious and aware of the cyclical nature of our planet, a force greater than all of us combined.

I am not a scientist, but I am someone who has been fascinated with our planet, how it works, geology, paleontology, the earth cycles, the solar system, etc. I am also not someone who thinks humans are the be all and end all on the planet. I've read and studied and listened to many learned people. I won't get into the religious aspect, because my views are most definitely not in line with most here (sorry, Mahonri, here is where we part company) but the people I've listen to and learned from are truly scientists, unaffected by what religion people believe in. We're ants here, insignificant in the great scheme of the universe.

Life began at some point, and it may end at some point, all without us really having anything at all to do with it. Mankind has been here for such a short period of time, before we came the earth went through many, many similar cycles to what we are seeing now. Science has shown this to be true, I don't hear anyone denying it.

But none of this changes anyone's mind, especially those who have done as I have done and come to their own conclusions - either for or against global warming. We will all have to wait and see. As someone said in this thread, we've been warmer before, and it was a great boom to agriculture for many. Warming is in and of itself not a bad thing. It just is.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a terrible thing, and something we should all be working towards ending.

 

[emilyfrancis]

Reinbeau,
There are scientist who disagree with what the impacts of of climate change will be but respected scientists agree that climate change is reality, and is human caused.
Climate itself has varied but the atmospheric changes we're currently undergoing are drastically different than those that have occurred in the past.
That's all.
Not sure how religion plays into this.

 

[sundance]

The only thing I know for SURE AND FOR CERTAIN IS I'M COLD.I'ts supposed to get down to 14 tonight, not counting the wind chill factor, some say snow some say no snow, I just know I'M COLD.

marrie

 

[Reinbeau]

Quote:
My last post on this - there are respected scientists who definitely don't agree that climate change is human created. They all agree that climate change is a reality.

Religion comes into it in many forums. The truly religious see the planet given to them by God and given dominion over it all, I'm not going near that one here. People who think like me use the term rather sarcastically, because it seems you need to suspend all believe in reality to climb on board the global warming train - and others think that of us. Whatever. As I said, time will tell; I'm confident of where I stand.

Final post, I promise.

 

[Rosalind]

Quote:
Well said!

And that is why I am so against the whole "trust an expert to know what they are talking about" heuristic. It makes sense to trust an expert in some instances--say, when there's a bird flu epidemic and we need to get the most studied and most experienced people on the job right away, before it spreads. In others, where you can see the basic data for yourself with a simple Google query, people should be encouraged to do the maths, check the science, and come to their own conclusions. After all, it's all our tax $$ paying for this stuff. Science is nothing more than a method of thinking objectively about information and applying logic. Unfortunately, epistemology, logic and maths are hardly taught in our schools...