Jump to content
toomuchbaloney toomuchbaloney (Member) Nurse

The Myth of Climate Change

Lounge   (16,461 Views 353 Comments)
2 Followers; 39,516 Visitors; 10,715 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 9 of The Myth of Climate Change. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can't cause climate change is like arguing that humans can't start bushfires because in the past they've happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth's history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can't cause climate change is like arguing that humans can't start bushfires because in the past they've happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth's history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

....but at a miniscule rate compared to natural processes which have ebbed and flowed since long before the first human wondered about such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can't cause climate change is like arguing that humans can't start bushfires because in the past they've happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth's history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

There is a difference between saying human released greenhouse gases can affect the climate and saying those gasses are causing the change. There are a lot of forces that affect the Earth's climate. When it rains my hot tub might fill and overflow. I could drop a glass of water in it and say that water contributed to the overflow which is factually true. However, even without the glass it would still overflow.

I think developing renewable energy sources is a good idea and we should not wait for the gas, oil, and coal to run out. However, making changes which only serve to transfer money from rich to poor countries or increase the price of energy to the poor does nothing for the climate.

Carbon credits are a scam. Allowing nations to continue to release CO2 if they buy credits will not help the climate. Using that same theory we should allow people to buy heavy metal release credits or spouse beating credits. The Kyoto protocol refused to allow the US to get credit for planting forests that would actually reduce atmospheric CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay

so scientists believe that decreasing the human carbon "footprint" might slow the process but we actually don't care, presumably because the bulk of the affects won't actually affect us but will affect our children's children or such.

It is the American conservative approach to argue whether climate is changing, argue whether or not humans are causing, impacting, or hastening the change; all while "conserving" or maintaining our current practices relative to fossil fuels. Apparently our conservative approach is to deny that sea levels are rising and that climate patterns are changing until the affects create a crisis at which time we will react, rather than developing a reasonable and thoughtful approach now. Because it will cost us too much wealth, I suppose, to change our direction now. We will kick that can down the road for our ancestors to deal with...we love our kids and grandkids like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As history has shown us, climate changes do happen, and then they reverse themselves. Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As history has shown us, climate changes do happen, and then they reverse themselves. Then what?

Are we speculating that if we continue to add carbon and methane to the atmosphere which serves to affect climate, that it will somehow be "reversed" in the future by a natural means? Is there science behind that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the American conservative approach to argue whether climate is changing, argue whether or not humans are causing, impacting, or hastening the change...

And it is apparently the American LIBERAL approach to destroy industries and jobs, impoverish workers and their dependent families, keep America dependent of foreign energy, waste BILLIONS of (some ELSE'S) tax dollars on alternative energy schemes that go bankrupt - all because there is a UNPROVEN theory that there is a SMALL possibility that we MIGHT be affecting the long-term climate of the earth, based on selected anecdotal evidence combined with a powerful radical political agenda.

Yeah, we conservatives tend to frown on that whole "approve it without knowing what's in it" philosophy that liberals tend to embrace without thinking.

We will kick that can down the road for our ancestors to deal with...

I believe you meant "descendents".

Also, PROVE that there even IS a can being kicked down the road. THEN we'll talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we speculating that if we continue to add carbon and methane to the atmosphere which serves to affect climate, that it will somehow be "reversed" in the future by a natural means? Is there science behind that?

Is there any "science" behind your premise that man's activities are of a scale so large that they aren't DWARFED by the natural processes that have cycled Earth's climate since billions of years before Al Gore was in diapers?

(Hint: The answer is "NO".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any "science" behind your premise that man's activities are of a scale so large that they aren't DWARFED by the natural processes that have cycled Earth's climate since billions of years before Al Gore was in diapers?

(Hint: The answer is "NO".)

Just as it would be incorrect to state that the human effect on climate will be substantial, it's just as incorrect to state that it will be minimal. The consensus is that humans can affect climate, but we don't know how much we will, it might be negligible, it might be significant, but neither has been ruled out.

A basic characteristic of all intelligent organisms is that when presented with a potential threat to their existence they act to improve their odds. As long as there is a significant portion of the science that says our impact might be significant, which there is, dealing with that is how we improve our odds of survival, unless we really aren't as intelligent of an organism as we like to think we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it is apparently the American LIBERAL approach to destroy industries and jobs, impoverish workers and their dependent families, keep America dependent of foreign energy, waste BILLIONS of (some ELSE'S) tax dollars on alternative energy schemes that go bankrupt - all because there is a UNPROVEN theory that there is a SMALL possibility that we MIGHT be affecting the long-term climate of the earth, based on selected anecdotal evidence combined with a powerful radical political agenda.

Yeah, we conservatives tend to frown on that whole "approve it without knowing what's in it" philosophy that liberals tend to embrace without thinking.

I believe you meant "descendents".

Also, PROVE that there even IS a can being kicked down the road. THEN we'll talk.

One could certainly argue motive for both sides, but do you really only see motives on the "liberal" side? You don't see any problem the most prominent backers of climate-science-denial being gas and coal interests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The authors of this literature search analyzed the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

 

They found that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed

AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

This analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...8_2_024024.pdf

Below is a link to the study by The Consensus Project. I disagree with their statement, "The Debate is Over".

the consensus project

According to some climate science deniers, this amounts to "anecdotal evidence"...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we speculating that if we continue to add carbon and methane to the atmosphere which serves to affect climate, that it will somehow be "reversed" in the future by a natural means? Is there science behind that?

I don't see why we need "science" behind it, when we have thousands of years of actual history and happenings that show it chills and then it heats, then it chills again. Again, I ask: what if that happens? then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.