http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
a synopsis of several arguments against global warming and rebuttals.
a synopsis of several arguments against global warming and rebuttals.
Global warming, right... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mattb
- Start date
- Status
I think that reducing both are part of the answer to reducing the rate and extent of climate change; however, these two variables are inseparable from climate change and will be naturally corrected if we aren't careful, human population being corrected much quicker than substantial regrowth of forests. Behavioral models on overpopulation are very clear. All of those issues are so interconnected.
Doesn't all this rely on how quickly plant life can move with climate change? I mean to say that naturally forests migrate with changing temperatures; however, the argument is that if climate changes too quickly a forest cannot migrate quick enough, thus dying. Also, lets say that this is what happened meaning that only small plants from a forest survives, which means what? I suppose this means more carbon in the air since trees hold more carbon for longer, blah, blah, blah.... It's all so complex it's hard to even skim the surface. I don't know what the answers are, but I do trust in the scientific process. The US is just coming on board with climate change because money decides what happens until it is just too blatant to ignore. If anything there has been a huge deal of propaganda strewn about to confuse the public about climate change. Those who are making the most money are those who have argued against climate change, now all of a sudden those arguing for climate change have money to make?? How do you figure?
If you have traveled the globe - you quickly realize this world is not as gigantic as you envision it to be when you are staring at your aquarium sitting on your couch in Minnesota.
You will also notice there is sure a lot more people on this planet - more than you envisioned staring at that cool aquarium. You then think - wow if all these people polluted and consumed like we do in the States we are in for some real trouble. Then you notice each time you go to Vietnam, China, Central America, etc - wow this place is changing fast and is becoming more and more like America and man do they have a lot of people.
So if you don't believe in global climate change or its contributing factors - I challenge you to go visit an spot in the world that these scientist say has been greatly impacted by climate change.
I guarantee it will change your prespective....If that doesn't work then perform some expirments on your reef tank to emulate global climate changes effect on the seas and see what happens.
You will also notice there is sure a lot more people on this planet - more than you envisioned staring at that cool aquarium. You then think - wow if all these people polluted and consumed like we do in the States we are in for some real trouble. Then you notice each time you go to Vietnam, China, Central America, etc - wow this place is changing fast and is becoming more and more like America and man do they have a lot of people.
So if you don't believe in global climate change or its contributing factors - I challenge you to go visit an spot in the world that these scientist say has been greatly impacted by climate change.
I guarantee it will change your prespective....If that doesn't work then perform some expirments on your reef tank to emulate global climate changes effect on the seas and see what happens.
Yep still waiting
yes they should be questioned until a scientific majority has consensus. this is the empirical process. in this country we rely on research (i.e., the empirical process) because it has shown its strength over any other process of understanding to date. we debate and remain hesitant until the data is overwhelming. the data with DDT became so overwhelming that the major players could not sway public opinion with propaganda anymore. this is exactly what has happened with climate change. even the US government is on board, which still astounds me. let's say that only Hawkings and Sagan were saying that climate change were real. that would not mean anything in terms of the empirical process; however, when there is a consensus within the scientific community which in turn sways the policy of every modern country, etc, etc. its hard to believe the earth is flat.
I think you have a lot of reading to do or you really need to start reading something other than the Onion. Unfortunately reading this kind of suggests that the rest of your opinions on this range of topics likely needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
DDT has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
good summary. I don't want to get deeper than that on this thread. Granted, this isn't MY thread, but I feel pretty involved in it. :biggrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
good summary. I don't want to get deeper than that on this thread. Granted, this isn't MY thread, but I feel pretty involved in it. :biggrin:
In 1962, Silent Spring by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. The book catalogued the environmental impacts of the indiscriminate spraying of DDT in the US and questioned the logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals into the environment without fully understanding their effects on ecology or human health. The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.[4] Its publication was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement. Silent Spring resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led to most uses of DDT being banned in the US in 1972.[5] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day in certain parts of the world and remains controversial.[6]
Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in the contiguous US.[7]
I know exactly what I am talking about, and DDT is very related to what is going on with climate change in regards to using science as a confusion tactic trying to sway public opinion. My comparison is big business back then using science against science as can be seen today with climate change. Tutmos I have no idea why you would make such a comment.
fair enough, buddy. again, my lack of political knowledge bites me.
I still think I've presented a whole mess of info that has yet to be responded to. And, if I recall the last thread, about half of the forum members think that all of that is BS.
you didn't ever take environmental studies? The DDT discussion is a main point.
who can spot a scarecrow fallacy???? um, um, me, me, I can, I can...
Okay you can cut & paste from wikipedia, how does that demonstrate any level of understanding about the issue with DDT? I certainly don't see that as suggestive of "knowing exactly what you're talking about."
okay guys, keep it civil...
I did a lot of cut and paste, it doesn't make the information irrelevant. I think all of the science that has been presented against global warming (in this thread) has been addressed, but if someone has more I'd be glad to read it.
Mattb, you mentioned the coral lists several times, can I get a peek at them?
I did a lot of cut and paste, it doesn't make the information irrelevant. I think all of the science that has been presented against global warming (in this thread) has been addressed, but if someone has more I'd be glad to read it.
Mattb, you mentioned the coral lists several times, can I get a peek at them?
Bob1
Senior Member
How about a special Global Warming Section. After 3000 responses it implodes!
naw, they all seem to piddle out after 100 or so responses.
breiwa1
Senior Member
Glad to see most people still think this is a scam. :beerchug:
you're being very rude.
actually, I don't think that there are any arguments against it that I haven't addressed. If you feel my arguments are weak, please show me where.
I've purposely avoided this thread long enough. NOBODY is going to change their mind about this topic so everyone that's trying to do so should just stop and instead devote their time and effort into something productive. It's right up there with religion and politics, people don't change their minds on account of others' beliefs, feelings, and arguments. Any change in belief will come from an internal realization.
Personally, I'd just like to step back and ask a simple, fundamental underlying question. Why is climate change bad?
The climate has been changing forever and will be changing forever. And forever means forever, whatever that means to you. Whether you believe in intelligent design or the big bang, the climate on earth has NEVER been stagnant and won't ever be stagnant. Sure climate change will make things different but why is different necessarily bad? Because our greenhouse gas producing coastal cities may soon be underwater where they won't be producing greenhouse gasses anymore? Not such a bad outcome now is it?
Embrace change.
Personally, I'd just like to step back and ask a simple, fundamental underlying question. Why is climate change bad?
The climate has been changing forever and will be changing forever. And forever means forever, whatever that means to you. Whether you believe in intelligent design or the big bang, the climate on earth has NEVER been stagnant and won't ever be stagnant. Sure climate change will make things different but why is different necessarily bad? Because our greenhouse gas producing coastal cities may soon be underwater where they won't be producing greenhouse gasses anymore? Not such a bad outcome now is it?
Embrace change.
we addressed this earlier in the thread. The problem is not change, it is the rate of change. Saying that change is irrelevant is a slippery slope. I doubt anyone would say that the deaths of those in say, 9/11 and all that has followed, weren't important because those people were going to die anyway. Death is inevitable, but we sure as hell do whatever we can to ensure it's postponement and the quality of our lives until it happens. Change is inevitable, but I would prefer we it happens smoothly and that we are prepared with a solid, scientific idea of the consequences of our actions.
- Status