So the only thing stopping warming in the US was pollution?

[oblivionx]

The US has some real non-political green agendas.

Leeds for example.

See no one here is against those things, no one.

[Deleted]

What about the fact that humans produce a massive amount of CO2? Your claim makes no sense at all unless we are pretending that the Industrial Revolution never happened.

You know that humans are only responsible for less than 5% of the total emission right, with the low concentration of green house gasses overall you could assume that the change is neglible. Let's say humans were the true reason of global warming, how are you going to explain the previous cycles that existed in millions of years?

I see your point, but I don't see how both are equally plausible.

Both are possible in the given scenario, ice for example stores CO2, if our temperature increases and ice melts, we'll see an increase in our CO2 levels. Also if am not mistaken (don't hang me on this), water at higher temperature also releases green house gasses.

If you view CO2/Temperature graphs, you'll see that there is a lag from the temperature increase to the increase concentration og CO2. Now this can be the reason of many things.

I am in no way disgarding the theory of CO2 is a contributer to the global warming, but stating it as the sole reason is pure government propoganda. In a eco-system with so many factors, isolating two and blaming them is pure stupidity. What you need to remember is that, most of the acclaimed 97% scientists that agree is government paid, or have affliations with them. They write their check, and the numbers on that check depends on what income their theories partly can earn (Simplified of course). Most independant scientists will tell you that what you hear from Al Gore, and the likes of that is purely manipulation of a small truth.

[oblivionx]

I think it's a sad reflection of your overall opinion on the UN and the politics of it.

What has the UN ever done?

[eriseis]

Both are possible in the given scenario, ice for example stores CO2, if our temperature increases and ice melts, we'll see an increase in our CO2 levels. Also if am not mistaken (don't hang me on this), water at higher temperature also releases green house gasses.

If you view CO2/Temperature graphs, you'll see that there is a lag from the temperature increase to the increase concentration og CO2. Now this can be the reason of many things.

I am in no way disgarding the theory of CO2 is a contributer to the global warming, but stating it as the sole reason is pure government propoganda. In a eco-system with so many factors, isolating two and blaming them is pure stupidity. What you need to remember is that, most of the acclaimed 97% scientists that agree is government paid, or have affliations with them. They write their check, and the numbers on that check depends on what income their theories partly can earn (Simplified of course). Most independant scientists will tell you that what you hear from Al Gore, and the likes of that is purely manipulation of a small truth.

Yeah, political manipulation of the issue is what's hurting it the most.

[Zecora]

What has the UN ever done?

......

I'm surprised anyone bothered with oblivionx after that phrase.

-I'm going to take your advice now.

[eriseis]

What has the UN ever done?

I don't know, you tell me, you're the one who thinks "white nations" are being attacked.

[oblivionx]

The UN wasn't intended to be some sort of world governing body.

[chuck123]

that's a cheap shot considering the USA is at the forefront of dealing with it

causing != dealing with

[oblivionx]

I don't know, you tell me, you're the one who thinks "white nations" are being attacked.

I think when you try and include the world into some global enforcement scheme, the have nots will always try and make the haves pay.

[fizyx]

I recognize ICPP affiliates as being qualified in their area of expertise.

I do not however fully back the body. Large organizations are riddled with bureaucracy.

How has no one commented on this yet? This is the funniest part of this whole show, imo. "I recognize the views people who are saying what I want to hear, and uphold the worthiness of their views based on the organization they belong to, but I don't recognize or uphold the views of the other 99.9% of members of that same organization because BUREAUCRACY!" Hahahahahaha, what a joke!

[semaphore]

You know that humans are only responsible for less than 5% of the total emission right, with the low concentration of green house gasses overall you could assume that the change is neglible.

5% is NOT negligible. The problem is that we are adding carbon without removing any from the environment. Natural CO2 emissions are aborsbed, hunman CO2 emissions are not removed by humans and need to be absored by the rest of the system. Nature exists in a balance, and we're screwing with that balance.

Think about it. Even at 5% a year (no idea whether your numbers are even remotely factual), those 5% adds up over time.

Let's say humans were the true reason of global warming, how are you going to explain the previous cycles that existed in millions of years?

I don't have to, because those previous cycles are different to what is happening now. The speed of the change is much faster, and humans are the reason. Of course warming happen without humans too over millions of years, but that's not what this is. Anthropological Global Warming is specifically talking about how human activity has immensely accerlerated and thus exacerbated the natural process.

[oblivionx]

You could say deforestation is the bigger problem.

You couldn't get that into any "world" legislation because the USA is one of the best at maintaining it's forests, EU has basically massively deforested the continent and South America and most of Asia can't find enough trees to cut down.

[chuck123]

About the "believers" vs the "non believevers".
There are numerous of religious and other formations/clubs that refuse to believe in commonly known facts.
Hell the catholic church needed ~500 years, to publicly admit that Galilei was right and they weren't eventho it has been proven time and time again that the earth is not a disc.
There are way more examples and you will mostly find atleast one example in most of the religions present, where they disagree with facts the rest of the world agrees with.

Does it make it right ? ... No, but believers will believe anything as long as some "higher beeing" tells them to.
Thus it is very impossible to "prove" anything to anyone who does not want to acknowledge a fact until they start to suffer from an effect that was caused by what they don't believe in. Most of the times, it's also to late for them.

P.S: And stop demanding sources for that crap, you can find proof for most anything on the web, yet it does not make it more true or false. You want to believe in something you will, depending how strong your faith in something or someone is.

[eriseis]

I think when you try and include the world into some global enforcement scheme, the have nots will always try and make the haves pay.

Oh, so white people are the haves. Eh? Not even the G8 is quite caucasian.

[Deleted]

5% is NOT negligible. The problem is that we are adding carbon without removing any from the environment. Natural CO2 emissions are aborsbed, hunman CO2 emissions are not removed by humans and need to be absored by the rest of the system. Nature exists in a balance, and we're screwing with that balance.

Think about it. Even at 5% a year (no idea whether your numbers are even remotely factual), those 5% adds up over time.

5% a year, includes us breathing and farting. I don't have any numbers for the how much of the 5% comes from what, but i think it's safe to assume that atleast half of that is just from us living. That means 2.5% of the total CO2 emission comes from industrial work and so on, with a already low concentration on CO2 in the atmosphere, the time it would take us to make a significant impact would be much larger than the time span Al Gore leads us the believe.

I don't have to, because those previous cycles are different to what is happening now. The speed of the change is much faster, and humans are the reason. Of course warming happen without humans too over millions of years, but that's not what this is. Anthropological Global Warming is specifically talking about how human activity has immensely accerlerated and thus exacerbated the natural process.

'Different to what is happening now'. How is it scientifically different? Do you have concrete proof that green house gasses is the direct and sole cause of global warming? If you do please share cause nobody has ever proved that. If not, you can't assume that anything is different now than in our previous cycles.

[Deadvolcanoes]

What you need to remember is that, most of the acclaimed 97% scientists that agree is government paid, or have affliations with them.

So what you are saying is that 97% of the most actively published climate researchers have come up with some conspiracy in which they are purposefully falsifying data just so they can pad their pay-check. Seems legit.

[chuck123]

So what you are saying is that 97% of the most actively published climate researchers have come up with some conspiracy in which they are purposefully falsifying data just so they can pad their pay-check. Seems legit.

Look, many people that believe in conspiracy tend to also be atheists or extreme believes in one religion (which in essence for many, is basically is the same in the opposite direction). While I'm fine with agnostics atheists and those that believe in something, there is a funny thing we should have a closer look.

Any religion, believes in one or more "higher beeings" that can do almost anything. Due to the fact that they can do virtually anything, no matter how big your problem or chance of solution is, if you multiply that with the higher beeings infinity, you come up with the simple math that even 0 x infinity is infinty and thus you will find salvation. (Very easy but thats how it works for a lot of people that have faith in some god)
Now, a person that does not believe, they dont have that luxury and simple way to soften their burdens, thus it is very easy to believe in conspiracy in almost anything as it gives them the same salvation that a person gets who believes in a form of god, which is actually quite amusing.
And for completition: If you are a blind follower already, well its very easy to blindly follow just one more thing as well.

[BurningKatanaa]

I didnt finish reading through the posts but I'd like to establish a few points here.

1: World doesn't have a food PRODUCTION issue, it has a food DISTRIBUTION issue. Although there are regional food production issues, we have enough food on this planet for everyone, and then some.

(Granted I am including the large portion of food that is discarded simply because it isn't pretty enough by industry... and the several tons of food we gladly throw away every year even though there's nothing actually wrong with it)

2: If you don't wanna waste money by dumping it into preventing global warming, throw that same money, into the same research and production... in order to make it cheaper for you to drive to work, and in order to make it cheaper to maintain your vehicles. Oh, and the whole "less dangerous industry" thing... and the whole "We won't need to wear rebreathers in cities in a few (hopefully more than 100 years... but I'm hopeful)" thing.... Oh and the whole removing a massive handicap on global industry thing...

What I'm saying with #2 is that there are a holyshitton of totally not-global-warming-related issues that trying to fix global warming will ALSO fix, that will DRASTICALLY IMPROVE global quality of life.

3: Stop quoting people who aren't climatologists about the goddamned climate. I don't care what organisations they affiliate themselves with, or about their Ph.D in Economics.

---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 04:53 PM ----------

country with the largest budget devoted to "green" causes? USA

green is popular in the USA. it's more openly discussed here than anywhere and we LED the movement to reduce the pollution from factories which is why all the companies moved to europe and asia in the 60s and 70s where laws were more lax

The allocation of budgets has next to nothing to do with the usage of said money. "Green" causes includes... making "cleaner" gasoline, which is pretty much the definition of putting a band-aid on a missile-wound.

[semaphore]

5% a year, includes us breathing and farting. I don't have any numbers for the how much of the 5% comes from what, but i think it's safe to assume that atleast half of that is just from us living.

In other words you have no idea, but is comfortable making up random figures and unfounded on assumptions in order to downplay the risk of the 30 billionn tonnes of CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere every year.

with a already low concentration on CO2 in the atmosphere, the time it would take us to make a significant impact would be much larger than the time span Al Gore leads us the believe.

Absolute concentration doesn't matter. It ought to be perfectly obvious that the real measure is the concentration relative to historical levels.

'Different to what is happening now'. How is it scientifically different?

I explained that in the very next sentence. It is happening much faster than normal.

Do you have concrete proof that green house gasses is the direct and sole cause of global warming?

First, no one said anything about being the "sole" cause of global warming. It is problems enough that they have a large effect. Second, if you know anything about science at all, you'd know that "concrete proof" is not how sceince works.

Nonetheless AGW is in fact what the evidence shows. We know that CO2 levels are at historical highs - they're at their highest in over 10 million years. We know this is because of the development of human industry (at your 5% per year, it only takes 20 years to emit an increase in CO2 by a whole year's worth of global output). We know this not just because we can actually tell that we are pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, but also because we know that as we were emitting more CO2, the atmospheric level of CO2 has also been increasing. Lastly we know that globally, temperature has been steadily rising. The empircal evidence is very strong.

Now where is your evidence that global warming isn't the result of historically high CO2 levels? Merely saying "it could be something else" is not scientific. We could all just have been created 5 minutes ago with pre-existing memories. Unless you have an alternative theory that can explain all the facts, you are in no position to claim that AGW is wrong.




---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 04:53 PM ----------

Look, many people that believe in conspiracy tend to also be atheists

That's unfounded.

---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 04:54 PM ----------

So what you are saying is that 97% of the most actively published climate researchers have come up with some conspiracy in which they are purposefully falsifying data just so they can pad their pay-check. Seems legit.

Not to mention the 3% left over are almost all directly paid by companies that profit from people thinking AGW is wrong.

[chuck123]

Semaphore, whilst I agree with most of what you said in this thread, quoting half sentences to put them out of context, is not a very decent move