Do you believe in man-made global warming?

[Onslaught]

Yes, exactly!  I would support planting more trees, more reponsible logging than what they're planning because the other stuff you KNOW will do something.  Just reducing "carbon" may do little to nothing.  Plus, at least trees will reduce carbon dioxide which is a win win situation in this case.  But they seem to be more hell bent on destroying civilization.

I'm more for working to try and balance it out. If we can cut back some without going into the stone age then that's good.

[Onslaught]

Actually it's total arrogance.  Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things.  It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.

I don't agree with you. And neither do people way smarter than both of us.

And I know, you'll point to some who agree with you. But I still don't know who's right.

Unlike some I'm open to both sides.

[Rupert]

Actually it's total arrogance.  Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things.  It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.

No, it's science. You have a lot of faith for being non-religious.

[hotrodalex]

We can probably change the climate, but I think it would take a longer time than 200 years. Trying to "fix" something we don't understand completely is a huge mistake.

[SVT666]

I don't agree with you. And neither do people way smarter than both of us.

And I know, you'll point to some who agree with you. But I still don't know who's right.

Unlike some I'm open to both sides.

Over 50% of the scientific community says we're in a natural cycle and that we are in a cooling trend now.  The earth's mean temperature has been falling since right around the year 2000. 

[SVT666]

No, it's science. You have a lot of faith for being non-religious.

No.  It's bogus science.  Computer models that don't take into account cloud activity and other important factors and whose results cannot be duplicated, ignoring satellite temperature readings that reveal a cooling trend over the past 10 years (some data even shows the cooling started as long as 15 years ago), stifling debate by declaring "concensus" when there clearly isn't (debate is what science is all about), and then referring to people like me as "Climate Change Deniers" in an attempt to liken us to "Holocaust Deniers" just shows that the Warmists aren't at all interested in real science. 

[NomisR]

I'm more for working to try and balance it out. If we can cut back some without going into the stone age then that's good.

I agree, I'm all for a low impact method of doing things but the way they're going about it isn't it.  They put out difficult, unachievable goals that will hurt everyone in the long run.  Not only that, they seem to be very proud of the "green" job that the policies will produce..

[hotrodalex]

I agree, I'm all for a low impact method of doing things but the way they're going about it isn't it.  They put out difficult, unachievable goals that will hurt everyone in the long run.  Not only that, they seem to be very proud of the "green" job that the policies will produce..

Thing is, little fixes don't get your name in the paper. Just like my highschool basketball coaches used to say, no one does the little things cuz it doesn't get you on Sportscenter. They go for the dunks, blocked shots, etc. But the best players are the ones that make the biggest difference are the ones that can continually do little things to help - box out, keep your head up, move your feet. Same thing with this. Everyone wants the big fix. Everyone wants to be on the news and win awards.

[GoCougs]

Over 50% of the scientific community says we're in a natural cycle and that we are in a cooling trend now.  The earth's mean temperature has been falling since right around the year 2000. 

(Stepping into my GWist shoes.)

It's "climate change" now not "global warming." The distinction being that some of areas of the planet will get warmer, others cooler. That the mean temperature of the planet is cooling is diversionary. All that matters is that poles are warming and polar bears are dying.

[hotrodalex]

polar bears are dying.

Sorry, it's just so addicting...

[NomisR]

Sorry, it's just so addicting...

I think clubbing those adorable little seals are much more fun..

reminder.. add to bucket list.

[Rupert]

No.  It's bogus science.  Computer models that don't take into account cloud activity and other important factors and whose results cannot be duplicated, ignoring satellite temperature readings that reveal a cooling trend over the past 10 years (some data even shows the cooling started as long as 15 years ago), stifling debate by declaring "concensus" when there clearly isn't (debate is what science is all about), and then referring to people like me as "Climate Change Deniers" in an attempt to liken us to "Holocaust Deniers" just shows that the Warmists aren't at all interested in real science. 

You should interact with more scientists.

[SVT666]

You should interact with more scientists.

I love how you don't even address the points I make.

[Rupert]

I love that I don't care what you think. I also love that I don't have the time to do your work and research for you.


Besides, the only real point you have that's relevant to the discussion is the last ten years of cooler temperatures, which I have refuted before. Ten years does not make a trend, to put it quickly.

[GoCougs]

Sorry, it's just so addicting...

But seriously, if slightly, somewhat, mostly or entirely true, isn't it more important that the half of the planet that lives in squalor have access to cheap, reliable energy sources as opposed to the lives of a few thousand polar bears? I say yes; and thus my common mantra that leaves GWists speechless whenever they go jihad on me in real life: "people are more important than polar bears."

[SVT666]

I love that I don't care what you think. I also love that I don't have the time to do your work and research for you.


Besides, the only real point you have that's relevant to the discussion is the last ten years of cooler temperatures, which I have refuted before. Ten years does not make a trend, to put it quickly.

For Warmists it only takes one hot record setting day to prove GW exists.

[Rupert]

For Warmists it only takes one hot record setting day to prove GW exists.

Bullshit, and you know it.

[SVT666]

Bullshit, and you know it.

So true it hurts you to admit it.

[Rupert]

So true it hurts you to admit it.

If you honestly think that, then your mind is further from the science than I thought.

[Onslaught]

But seriously, if slightly, somewhat, mostly or entirely true, isn't it more important that the half of the planet that lives in squalor have access to cheap, reliable energy sources as opposed to the lives of a few thousand polar bears? I say yes; and thus my common mantra that leaves GWists speechless whenever they go jihad on me in real life: "people are more important than polar bears."

In the end if we are doing it then I hope it turns around and kills the arrogant people. Unfortunately we will be long gone by that time and the others will be the ones paying.

Humans are overrated.

[NomisR]

In the end if we are doing it then I hope it turns around and kills the arrogant people. Unfortunately we will be long gone by that time and the others will be the ones paying.

Humans are overrated.

Regular humans are overrated.. I is superior to all humans!

[JWC]

I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes. 

Humans are collectively control freaks.  They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival. 

[dazzleman]

I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes.  

Humans are collectively control freaks.  They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival.  

I agree.  I don't think we can control the planet's changes, whether it warms or cools.  We have to roll with it.

Of course, we should do whatever we can to keep a clean environment, but that's a different issue, IMO.  My experience is that whenever something gets hyped up like this issue, the hype is usually wrong, and in retrospect, most of the things that were urged upon people in response to the hype turn out to have done more harm than good.

[Submariner]

Bullshit, and you know it.

My girlfriends mom and my girlfriend herself view it the same way.

"we had 2 weeks of 100+ degree weather, Zach, come on, this is global warming"

"NASA just released a study saying the earth is actually cooling slightly"

...violent shaking of heads.

[Submariner]

I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes. 

Humans are collectively control freaks.  They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival. 

It's not just about control, either.  I have a feeling part of it is due to the collectivist mentality of many.  In other words, people want to be a part of something, and when it has momentum, like "climate change" it has an even greater allure.  Look no further than the GW rallies which resemble parties more than protests. 

[dazzleman]

It's not just about control, either.  I have a feeling part of it is due to the collectivist mentality of many.  In other words, people want to be a part of something, and when it has momentum, like "climate change" it has an even greater allure.  Look no further than the GW rallies which resemble parties more than protests.  

You're so right.  Much of the people involved with 'movements' have no real concept of what they're part of.  It feels good to be part of something, and they're essentially ripe to be manipulated by the people leading the movement.

I wish people were smarter, but most are just so stupid.  It's distressing to watch after a while.

[Rupert]

My girlfriends mom and my girlfriend herself view it the same way.

"we had 2 weeks of 100+ degree weather, Zach, come on, this is global warming"

"NASA just released a study saying the earth is actually cooling slightly"

...violent shaking of heads.

Are your girlfriend and mother scientists with half a clue? No? Then their opinion hardly matters in a debate about science, eh? If you want to debate the sociological effects of the science of climate change, you're talking to the wrong guy.

[Morris Minor]

Warmology is just another quasi-religious kook movement. It's adherents are little different from abortocentrics, or Islamic-stone-age nutters, or loonies who see images of the Virgin Mary in the peanut butter spread on their toast.

[FoMoJo]

I agree.  I don't think we can control the planet's changes, whether it warms or cools.  We have to roll with it.

The measure of our impact may be unclear but there is no doubt that we do impact our climate.  Certainly our climate varies and the more we understand about it, the better prepared we will be to deal with the effects; especially as it displaces land masses and shifts global weather patterns. 

Of course, we should do whatever we can to keep a clean environment, but that's a different issue, IMO.  My experience is that whenever something gets hyped up like this issue, the hype is usually wrong, and in retrospect, most of the things that were urged upon people in response to the hype turn out to have done more harm than good.

I don't consider polluting the surface of our planet to be any different than polluting our atmosphere or any other of the environmental disasters we've begotten.  As well, those who have long warned of the effects of our polluting have generally been ignored until it's so obvious that even the most calculating, or dim-witted, must concede to the truth; and irreversible damage is done.  there are many instances of this.

I don't much care for the mindless rabble on either side of the issue who parrot the phrases of their political dieties -- I don't consider many here in either camp.  They distract too much from the serious people who seek understanding and solutions.  Who is worse, the giddy green geeks who prance about hoisting effigies of G8 leaders as symbols of inaction or the sanctimonious skeptics who insist that spewing as much exploded fossil fuel as they are capable of into the atmosphere could not possibly have an iota of measureable impact on the balance of our climatological workings?

[NomisR]

The measure of our impact may be unclear but there is no doubt that we do impact our climate.  Certainly our climate varies and the more we understand about it, the better prepared we will be to deal with the effects; especially as it displaces land masses and shifts global weather patterns. 

I don't consider polluting the surface of our planet to be any different than polluting our atmosphere or any other of the environmental disasters we've begotten.  As well, those who have long warned of the effects of our polluting have generally been ignored until it's so obvious that even the most calculating, or dim-witted, must concede to the truth; and irreversible damage is done.  there are many instances of this.

I don't much care for the mindless rabble on either side of the issue who parrot the phrases of their political dieties -- I don't consider many here in either camp.  They distract too much from the serious people who seek understanding and solutions.  Who is worse, the giddy green geeks who prance about hoisting effigies of G8 leaders as symbols of inaction or the sanctimonious skeptics who insist that spewing as much exploded fossil fuel as they are capable of into the atmosphere could not possibly have an iota of measureable impact on the balance of our climatological workings?

The thing with the whole GW thing is, .. oh wait.. it's Climate Change... is that they can't even come up with a consistent doomsday scenario for us.  Just like the global drought that was suppose to happen, the global famine that was suppose to happen, the fuel crisis that was suppose to happen, the acid rain that'll destroy the world, and everything else.  You know what?  None of that ever truly occured and none of the changes that the "scientists" said should be done to avoid catastrophe ever fully implemented if at all.  We just jumped from one crisis to another without ever solving anything.

Another thing, you know what the main cause of all the global fear is?  Population.. too many people on earth. 

Again, I'm not saying we should be doing anything, but all this fear mongering is not benefiting anyone and only help the likes of Al Gore profit.  For example.. cap and trade.. c'mon.. like that's going to do anything for the environment??  It's just another tax on the economy.. I would much rather they implement the strict regulations like California because at least that's actually doing something.. destructive to the economy.. but doing something..  Cap and trade is just a fee and charge and shifting polution but that's it...