Do you believe in man-made global warming?

[hotrodalex]

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

Yup! Maybe we should start clubbing baby human instead of baby seals?

[Onslaught]

Yup! Maybe we should start clubbing baby human instead of baby seals?

Can we? And can we kill the parents who take them all over the place crying all the time too?

[FoMoJo]

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...

You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all .  Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all.  The question is "Do you believe in man-made global warming?"  I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.

Bear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us.  The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is.  It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.

[SVT666]

You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all .  Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all.  The question is "Do you believe in man-made global warming?"  I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.

There's a very good case against it too.  IMHO the evidence against it is more convincing, especially when the results of the computer models cannot be reproduced the worldwide scientific community is split down the middle.  It's easy for someone to jump on the "GW" train because there's no backlash against you, but the "against" crowd is ridiculed, fired from their jobs, and branded "deniers" among other things.  It's harder to be "against" man-made global warming and half the scientific community is against it, which says to me they must be pretty strong in their conviction to put up with th BS.

Bear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us.  The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is.  It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.

Famine is caused mostly by poverty and corruption.

Drought happens every year in different places.  It's nothing new even though the "warmists" do manage to convince people it is.  People have short memories and the dust bowls of the 1930s happened well before most people were even born.

[mzziaz]

Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.

[FoMoJo]

Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.

If you include in the scientific community the likes of S. Fred Singer, Tim Ball and their ilk as well as a collection of hippy dippy weathermen, perhaps.

[SVT666]

Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.

Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.?

A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent ?strongly agreed? and 25.3 percent ?agreed? with the statement ?climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.? Some 10.2 percent ?strongly disagreed.?

A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet?s recent warmth ?can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,? and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

In June 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, that presented the first comprehensive rebuttal of the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With contributions from more than 30 scientists and citations to more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report concluded that climate change is not a crisis.

[FoMoJo]

Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.?

A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent ?strongly agreed? and 25.3 percent ?agreed? with the statement ?climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.? Some 10.2 percent ?strongly disagreed.?

A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet?s recent warmth ?can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,? and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

In June 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, that presented the first comprehensive rebuttal of the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With contributions from more than 30 scientists and citations to more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report concluded that climate change is not a crisis.

I'm aware of this.  Also, I'm aware of a large body of climatologists who, based on a great deal of research, caution otherwise.  The simple fact is that the jury is still out and there will not be any conclusive determination any time soon.  However, for skeptics to categorically deny the possibility if manmade global warming is being shortsighted.

[SVT666]

I'm aware of this. 

mzziaz questioned the "split down the middle" statement I made, so I gave him some information to prove my point.

Also, I'm aware of a large body of climatologists who, based on a great deal of research, caution otherwise. 

I'm aware of this as well, but there is an equally large body of climatologists who have actually had their work peer reviewed and results duplicated, who say otherwise.

The simple fact is that the jury is still out and there will not be any conclusive determination any time soon. 

Not according to the Warmists.  According to them, the debate is over and there is consensus.  BTW, I agree with you.

However, for skeptics to categorically deny the possibility if manmade global warming is being shortsighted.

I hope you also reserve this statement for the warmists who categorically deny any possibility that it isn't man creating climate change. 

The biggest problem I have is that we are going out of our way to try and "fix" something that we A) don't understand, and B) don't know if it's even broke.  We are willing to piss away billions of dollars, institute new taxes, and stifle economic growth (when we really need it) for this.

[FoMoJo]

The biggest problem I have is that we are going out of our way to try and "fix" something that we A) don't understand, and B) don't know if it's even broke.  We are willing to piss away billions of dollars, institute new taxes, and stifle economic growth (when we really need it) for this.

I wrote a rather elaborate reply and then it was lost when the post didn't complete .

Anyways, the gist is...I'm glad we agree that the GW issue is unresolved...other than continuing research, we don't agree on whether action should be taken as I feel that, in similar situations, we delayed until damage was done...you likely know of many of these issues...as for reducing the use of fossil fuels, Canada will suffer economically; even now with a slow-down unrelated to GW, provinces have gone from surplus to deficit budgets...that is why it is important for us to develop an economy based more on alternative energy products because, notwithstanding GW, that is the future.

[JWC]

No matter which way you believe, the case for GW is fear mongering.  I hear it constantly in NC because of the OBX.  We're constantly reminded that if GW is allowed to continue, we will lose the OBX, along with the tourist dollars and billions in businesses and homes.

Sounds horrible.  Unfortunately, anyone who attended classes in NC in the sixties and seventies, learned that the OBX are constantly shifting and have been for thousands of years.  In other words, we're trying to fix something that happens naturally.  

A program on NC Public Television about global warming, took the film makers 90 miles inland to show the potential damage that GW would cause....by showing where the shoreline was millions of years ago, saying that if GW continues it could very well flood those areas again.   There are those who would take this at face value without questioning it.   For me, they didn't do themselves any favor by saying that what happened once, naturally, will happen again only this time it is man-made.

The earth is a living creature that constantly changes.  Man believes he can control that change.  Man has been proven wrong and foolish in such thinking throughout history.  Almost without fail, man has made it worse trying to change nature.  

[NomisR]

You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all .  Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all.  The question is "Do you believe in man-made global warming?"  I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.

Bear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us.  The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is.  It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.

You're right, I didn't mention Cold War because that was man made and completely political.  Not the political science I was refering to.

As for the thing that happened?  Sure, but did it happen to the same extent that people said it would?  Running out of food in year 2000?  Forests turning into deserts?

How much of that happened? 

Like I said.. if we just simply let people die rather than try to save everyone.. we would have less of the problem we're talking about today.. 

Again, I'm not against trying to make the world a better place, otherwise, I wouldn't be thinking of the cars that I am thinking about getting, but the way we're going about it is all wrong.  There are better, more gradual and economical ways to go about it, and it'll be met with less resistance.  But of course, like someone posted somewhere.. something small will not get anyone in the papers so that's why it's done. 

It's stupid and we need to stop politicizing everything...

[SVT666]

I wrote a rather elaborate reply and then it was lost when the post didn't complete .

Anyways, the gist is...I'm glad we agree that the GW issue is unresolved...other than continuing research, we don't agree on whether action should be taken as I feel that, in similar situations, we delayed until damage was done...you likely know of many of these issues...as for reducing the use of fossil fuels, Canada will suffer economically; even now with a slow-down unrelated to GW, provinces have gone from surplus to deficit budgets...that is why it is important for us to develop an economy based more on alternative energy products because, notwithstanding GW, that is the future.

Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW.  Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken.  Now, do I know what the future energy source will be?  Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying.  Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes.  Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day.  Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.

[GoCougs]

FFT - Putting the state in charge of energy is no different than GWism - they're equivalent mindsets both with the catastrophic end results. I

[NomisR]

Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW.  Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken.  Now, do I know what the future energy source will be?  Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying.  Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes.  Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day.  Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.

The current 1 car per day hydrogen stations are solar powered.  However, the Hydrogen source is from natural gas and not water.  However, the hydrogen stations once fully developed could be used to power and heat homes which may actually allow homes to be completely off the grid.  This may allow for cheaper energy generation as less loss through the power lines along with cheaper infrastructure.. or reduce cost.. I like that direction..

[FoMoJo]

Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW.  Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken.  Now, do I know what the future energy source will be?  Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying.  Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes.  Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day.  Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.

I'm glad we, more or less, agree.  Alternative energy, imo, may well be from various sources -- I've been saying that long before Obama has .  The abundance of fossil fuels has somewhat delayed the need to develop energy storage which I think will play a big role in future energy usage.  As Nomis has mentioned, homes, eventually, should be off the grid once alternative energy technologies have advanced to a level to sustain this.  I have no doubt they will; even in my lifetime.

[FoMoJo]

No matter which way you believe, the case for GW is fear mongering.  I hear it constantly in NC because of the OBX.  We're constantly reminded that if GW is allowed to continue, we will lose the OBX, along with the tourist dollars and billions in businesses and homes.

Sounds horrible.  Unfortunately, anyone who attended classes in NC in the sixties and seventies, learned that the OBX are constantly shifting and have been for thousands of years.  In other words, we're trying to fix something that happens naturally. 

A program on NC Public Television about global warming, took the film makers 90 miles inland to show the potential damage that GW would cause....by showing where the shoreline was millions of years ago, saying that if GW continues it could very well flood those areas again.   There are those who would take this at face value without questioning it.   For me, they didn't do themselves any favor by saying that what happened once, naturally, will happen again only this time it is man-made.

The earth is a living creature that constantly changes.  Man believes he can control that change.  Man has been proven wrong and foolish in such thinking throughout history.  Almost without fail, man has made it worse trying to change nature. 

I believe most understand this; at least those who think seriously about the matter.  The only real question is whether by releasing additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are we excelerating the process?  I believe this is a fair question; and I agree, we should not try and change nature but we may be unintentionally changing it by our actions.

[FoMoJo]

You're right, I didn't mention Cold War because that was man made and completely political.  Not the political science I was refering to.

I mentioned the cold war as a prime example of how some exploit any situation such as those who are exploiting the issue of climate change.  It makes good business for some however, it makes very bad business for others;  especially those who are in the fossil fuel business and don't want to invest in alternative enery.

btw, the cold war certainly was man made.

[SVT666]

I'm glad we, more or less, agree.  Alternative energy, imo, may well be from various sources -- I've been saying that long before Obama has .  The abundance of fossil fuels has somewhat delayed the need to develop energy storage which I think will play a big role in future energy usage.  As Nomis has mentioned, homes, eventually, should be off the grid once alternative energy technologies have advanced to a level to sustain this.  I have no doubt they will; even in my lifetime.

Energy companies hold a lot of power (no pun intended), so I don't know if they would allow something like that to happen.

[FoMoJo]

Energy companies hold a lot of power (no pun intended), so I don't know if they would allow something like that to happen.

That would be an (another) example of business stifling free enterprise.  There's some irony in that.

[NomisR]

That would be an (another) example of business stifling free enterprise.  There's some irony in that.

But then again, there ARE energy companies that are for "green" energy.  But those are the ones that are more heavily invested in Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc.. and not as heavily reliant on coal, oil and gas.

I'm more curious to what would happen to the private energy companies if we allowed them to build all the nuclear power plants and once the useful life of the plants are up.  Cleanup of that site would be extremely expensive and may bankrupt the companies. 

[FoMoJo]

But then again, there ARE energy companies that are for "green" energy.  But those are the ones that are more heavily invested in Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc.. and not as heavily reliant on coal, oil and gas.

I'm more curious to what would happen to the private energy companies if we allowed them to build all the nuclear power plants and once the useful life of the plants are up.  Cleanup of that site would be extremely expensive and may bankrupt the companies. 

I would think that there is enough knowledge and experience with nuclear energy in order to forecast the cost of the entire lifetime cycle of a plant; including storage of spent fuel.  In saying that, I searched for some information and came up with an article on Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power .  I really didn't read it very carefully at this time, but it seemed quite interestng.

So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. Normalized to 1 GigaWatt electrical capacity, the energy required to construct and decommission the plant, which amounts to 4 Peta-Joules (PJ), which is repaid in 1.5 months. The energy required to dispose of the waste is also 4 PJ and repaid in 1.5 months. In total this is less than 0.8% of the all the electrical energy produced by the plant.

Some more info at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant