How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Vuljatar]

I don't believe that humans are the primary affector of global climate change because the planet's temperature has fluctuated greatly throughout it's history, and the charts that the fearmongers always use to "prove" their panicked claims only take into account the last century or less.

[Endus]

How is it irrelevant if the mean temperature is going to rise no matter what we do? Of course it matters what happened in the past, but then again, looking at the whole picture isn't for everyone.

The issue isn't whether the planet can survive the shift.

The issue is whether human civilizations can survive the shift. As fertile areas that feed our populations go arid and become deserts, as we know has happened with the Sahara at the edge of recorded history. As storms grow in severity and shift paths. As sea levels rise, and swamp the coasts between meters and meters of water. The issue is the rate of change, which is already faster than natural processes, and seems to be accelerating.

And the temperature isn't going to rise "no matter what we do". We can develop the technology to change it. It's not that difficult. We tipped the balance one way, we can tip it the other, too.

[Fojos]

The issue isn't whether the planet can survive the shift.

The issue is whether human civilizations can survive the shift. As fertile areas that feed our populations go arid and become deserts, as we know has happened with the Sahara at the edge of recorded history. The issue is the rate of change, which is already faster than natural processes, and seems to be accelerating.

And the temperature isn't going to rise "no matter what we do". We can develop the technology to change it. It's not that difficult. We tipped the balance one way, we can tip it the other, too.

So how to we "tip" the temperature and location of the sun? We can develop technology to survive the shift, yes, but not the warming (possibly the rate of it, but either way it's coming).

[semaphore]

How is it irrelevant if the mean temperature is going to rise no matter what we do?

Massive leap in logic there. How do you know that the mean temperature is going to rise "no matter what we do"? You don't. You're either making a completely unfounded assumption based on discarding all climate science and evidence, or you're pretending that a slow and steady temperature rises taking place over millions of years and into the far future is comparable to the present, rapidly anthropogenic warming.

looking at the whole picture isn't for everyone.

I can see that from the way you ignored most of the picture. Looking only at the average temperature and pretending that is somehow meaningful, is the epitome of cherrypicking data and disregarding logic.

[Endus]

So how to we "tip" the temperature and location of the sun?

Don't be disingenuous. We don't have to change the sun, or the rotation of the Earth.

We CAN change the atmospheric composition, and the albedo of the Earth. We know this because we do.

[semaphore]

I don't believe that humans are the primary affector of global climate change because the planet's temperature has fluctuated greatly throughout it's history, and the charts that the fearmongers always use to "prove" their panicked claims only take into account the last century or less.

Unfortunately for all of us, your beliefs have nothing to do with objective reality.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 06:17 AM ----------

So how to we "tip" the temperature and location of the sun? We can develop technology to survive the shift, yes, but not the warming (possibly the rate of it, but either way it's coming).

What's coming, and how do you know it's coming? The eventual scorching of Earth in a billion years?

[Vuljatar]

Unfortunately for all of us, your beliefs have nothing to do with objective reality.

Really? Because the objective reality is that the earth's temperature has gone up and down and all over the damn place without any artificial influence.

[semaphore]

Really? Because the objective reality is that the earth's temperature has gone up and down and all over the damn place without any artificial influence.

So what? This time it's due to our artificial influence. You're basically saying that people die from natural causes all the time, so if we see somebody murder a person, then nope the victim's death can't possibly be due to the murderer's actions.

Yours is such an oft-repeated and completely broken non-logic.

[mvaliz]

Really? Because the objective reality is that the earth's temperature has gone up and down and all over the damn place without any artificial influence.

Please tell me how any of that is "objective reality"? What's "objective reality" is today... what's going on, and how rapidly temps are changing. What's your solution? Nobly do nothing and get drunk?

No offense, but Global Warming has more evidence behind it than "oh, it's probably just random hiccups in Earth's atmosphere. Happens every couple of centuries I guess..." - and chances are the worlds leading scientists probably have a lot better access to information, equipment and studies than you do... you know, the ones actually WORKING on the situation?

This isn't about being in a "panic"... this is about doing something BEFORE the bad things happen. Even if it is "natural" (which I do not think it is), Do you REALLY want an opposite version of the ice-age happening? Would you not want to at least TRY to attempt things?

[Endus]

Really? Because the objective reality is that the earth's temperature has gone up and down and all over the damn place without any artificial influence.

The objective reality is that people die all the time, but that doesn't mean murder isn't murder. The earth's recent temperature shifts do not match the natural models you mention.

[Wells]

Really? Because the objective reality is that the earth's temperature has gone up and down and all over the damn place without any artificial influence.

That has zero bearing on whether we're making it change now or not.

[Vuljatar]

So what? This time it's due to our artificial influence. You're basically saying that people die from natural causes all the time, so if we see somebody murder a person, then nope the victim's death can't possibly be due to the murderer's actions.

Yours is such an oft-repeated and completely broken non-logic.

But we don't know that, we assume that. To re-use your analogy, you're basically saying that if anyone anywhere ever dies, then nope it couldn't possibly be due to natural causes.

[Grizzly Willy]

But we don't know that, we assume that. To re-use your analogy, you're basically saying that if anyone anywhere ever dies, then nope it couldn't possibly be due to natural causes.

I'm interested in seeing your data.

[Endus]

But we don't know that, we assume that. To re-use your analogy, you're basically saying that if anyone anywhere ever dies, then nope it couldn't possibly be due to natural causes.

It's more like looking at a corpse with gunshot wounds and say "yep, that's definitely not natural causes."

The rate of change is beyond that of natural climate shifting. And the real issue is that it isn't like pushing a rock along a plain, where if we shove it a little, it's just a bit more to the left. No, it's like pushing a rock at the top of a mountain. If we push it over the edge, it jump-starts natural processes which further accelerate the process and the whole thing accelerates into a landslide.

And that's the big issue. Natural shifts are often not peaceful. Throw a snowball in the wrong place, and you set off an avalanche. And evidence is mounting that we've already thrown that snowball.

[Xarkan]

As to the general thrust of the thread, I think the bigger issue is how do we turn the train around without running it off the tracks?

The bigger issue is not how do you reverse the train without getting it off the tracks. The issue is how do you reverse the train when the loco driver refuses to stop accelerating.

Or to bring it more into the real world. Is it not pointless if the rest of the world creates targets (that are already probably too lenient) if 3-500 million people just increase their output by more than 6.5-6.7billion can reduce it? It is all a complete waste

[semaphore]

But we don't know that, we assume that.

Who's "we"? The imaginary straw scientists in your head? Or the imaginary liberal scientists in Fox News?

Because here in the real world, we do in fact know "that". We have a mountain of evidence, which many of us have gone over in detail in the past 54 pages and every other global warming threads. Just because apparently you personally do not understand or know anything about climate sciences, does not give you any right to dismiss the vast body of scientific work as assumptions.

To re-use your analogy, you're basically saying that if anyone anywhere ever dies, then nope it couldn't possibly be due to natural causes.

Except this is more like you saying "we don't know that he's murdered!!! you can't assume that!!!!!" while looking at a kitchen knife sticking out of the victim (human carbon emissions), next to a trail of bloody footprints (carbon isotopes in atmosphere), and witnesses tell you that a man in blood was seen running away from the crime scene (basic thermodynamics).

[Banzhe]

I hope this isn't too much of a necro, but I saw this recently and it ties in with this thread:

Basically the Met office in the UK has re-forecast it's temperature predictions in the UK as the two graphs below show:



It goes to the point I was making before (somewhere in the depths of this thread) it's happening BUT we need more information and better models before you can sell everyone on it because the reality isn't living up to the horror stories we've been sold.

I'm sure it's part media hype, people looking for headlines and misreading reports but if there's a job to educate people, it's not happening.

That's because there's two sides to the global warming, it's also a global dimming as clouds filled with carbon particles become mirrors (Trapping greenhouse gases that's acting as a booster to global warming, and reflecting the suns particles with the exception of the infrared light) and hold up to 10 times the amount of water droplets compared to "healthy" clouds.

Nothing will ever be done about this issue until it's to late, developing countries will argue it's their right to burn coal and oil with no filters, developed countries will argue that there's no reason for them to do anything if it's not combated on a global scale, or that the economy isn't there for it (Idiot politicians!!)

[Vuljatar]

What's your solution? Nobly do nothing and get drunk?

Well, considering I didn't say that, maybe that's not "my solution"? Food for thought.

This isn't about being in a "panic"

Are you serious? Of course it is. All my life I've seen global warming paranoia flooding the mainstream media. When I was a child I was told that by the time I was in college Florida would be gone and Houston would be oceanfront property.

this is about doing something BEFORE the bad things happen. Even if it is "natural" (which I do not think it is), Do you REALLY want an opposite version of the ice-age happening? Would you not want to at least TRY to attempt things?

Why don't you point out where I said these things that you seem to think I said.

The objective reality is that people die all the time, but that doesn't mean murder isn't murder. The earth's recent temperature shifts do not match the natural models you mention.

And the shifts in ancient times don't match the shifts that preceded them. Is that evidence of a high-co2 civilization of ancient aliens? I don't think so.

That has zero bearing on whether we're making it change now or not.

It certainly does have a bearing on that question.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm awaiting your evidence, Vuljatar.

[Wells]

It really doesn't. When you flip a coin what it landed on last time has zero bearing on how it will land this time. That the climate has changed in the past has zero bearing on whether we are changing it now or not.