Global Warming (ignore the thread if you don't like the topi

[CougarClaw]

I realize this topic brings out the worst in some people, but I just read a very well written article by none other than our favorite climatologist Al Gore:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... l-20110622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

probably wouldn't have impacted me as much if I hadn't also seen the latest "low arctic ice" measurement on CNN.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/ar ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've heard arguments on both sides and previously bought into the whole Green-movement-is-about-pushing-the-liberal-agenda and how it's a farce but now I'm not so sure. I like to consider myself a rational person and Al Gore does a very good job with his argument of shifting the question of science to a question of power. i have no doubt there are scientists being paid to discover evidences for both sides of the issue, but it does seem to me that there is more evidence to support than to deny. Not trying to be inflammatory and I don't want a fight, just a rational discussion.

(and please read the articles if you want to comment on how off-base I am.)

[Sammich]

Isn't it just possible that the cause of climate change is just a controversial topic? Can't people realize that science is incapable (using current methods) of conclusively proving the cause of climate trends or fluctuations?

If Al Gore wants to believe that the correlative relationships are causal, that is fine. He can pursue legislation to control emissions to his heart's content. But to act like science is firmly on his side is to misunderstand the nature and limitations of science. He is pushing an agenda, just like anyone else who acts like they have the final answer on this issue.

There are several reasons why economics, macroevolution, and climate change will continue to be controversial topics, and it's because the science for them is soft right now. Yes, they have political ramifications. Yes, there are religious zealots (on both sides) that want to push their version of things. But most importantly, all of them are based on complex systems that cannot be observed and tied to their causes in real-time. We can study them historically, and then draw conclusions based on their relationships to the limited things we see related to them in history. And while those relationships may sound very convincing, they cannot be defined under the laws of science and logic as proof.

[BroncoBot]

I read the first page and got bored by the analogy. Sorry.

[snoscythe]

Not too many people argue Global Warming, what people argue is the "Anthropomorphic" that Gore et'al put in front of it.

We are working on an oil and gas project where we have 27 potential productive intervals, and each of those intervals was created by successive warming and cooling periods in the earth's atmosphere and the associated rise and fall of sea levels. The earth warms and cools, and it's been in a relatively cool period for all of humankind's recorded history. It's a pretty high hurdle to clear to tell me that this is caused by humans when these cycles occurred long before humans, and no one has come close to clearing the hurdles, but Gore and many others have made oodles of money from simply claiming it.

[BroncoBot]

^^^This.

The fact that Gore has made so much money from this makes his a biased argument. And as sno pointed out, there have been plenty of warming/cooling periods not associated with human's pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

When I graduated from BYU one of the speakers said that the trend is to scare people into thinking a certain way. Kind of a "the sky is falling" argument to persuade. Certainly fits the (manmade) global warming theorists. Don't have to look back to far when science demanded that we burn tires in antarctica to keep the world from going into a ice age.

[Mars]

Can't people realize that science is incapable (using current methods) of conclusively proving the cause of climate trends or fluctuations? ...the science for them is soft right now... We can study them historically, and then draw conclusions based on their relationships to the limited things we see related to them in history. And while those relationships may sound very convincing, they cannot be defined under the laws of science and logic as proof.

This. People try to claim what the weather will be like 100 years from now, when they don't have the science to tell us what the weather will be like on Friday. It's a pitiful farce. Crichton will set them straight.

[tww]

Seeing as how Al Gore has shown a propensity to falsify information in an attempt to deceive for his own personal enrichment (An Inconvenient Truth, where he used CG to create melting glaciers and used other falsified research for his numbers) and that he has been quite willing to lie and otherwise break the law as long as he thinks that he will not go to prison ("No controlling authority," after taking illegal Chinese money), not to mention his hypocrisy in his personal life style (carbon footprint), I ask these questions. Why would a clear thinking person give the man the time of day by listening to anything he says? Why should anyone believe or trust him now?

To me, he has less credibility than Bernie Madoff and to even engage him in conversation is to warm the snake in your coat.

[BoiseBYU]

The question of import is not whether there is global warming. There is. And it is NOT whether man is THE cause. The science can't answer that yet. THE question, to me, is whether man's activity has an affect on global warming. Perhaps some of this global warming is natural earth rythyms or whatever, but what if some of is accentuated or fostered by our fossil fuel use? You cannot rule out that man has NO effect on global warming. Thus, what to do? To me it seems to me the wise or prudent thing to be doing is migrating away from fossile fuels. We cannot afford to be wrong and going full bore on fossible fuels and then ultimately find out that their usage does add to or cause GW. In a perfect world where I was philosopher king, I'd consider carbon credits and taxes on fossil fuel to try and better internalize the costs of use of these products. Don't flame too greatly you all....I just see a scriptural mandate that we are stewards of this world and as stewards being cautious and careful seems right to me. We need fewer Al Gores and Rush Limbaughs on this issue .

[BroncoBot]

In an age where 5 "green companies" have went under who were basically handed money on a silver platter (stimulus package) by the US government, and top scientists are resigning from certain positions because they view the "manmade" global warming push to be too over the top, it's safe to say the US government has no business getting involved. If private companies figures out a way to make energy more efficiently I'm all for getting away from the oil business. But why force taxpayers to foot the bill for something that has no hard evidence? If I was philosopher king I'd tell the UN to get their grubby hands out of the United State's business. I'd let the states retain their rights to decide on this issue, and if I was governor I'd do whatever the will of the people was on the issue.

That's my only beef with this whole issue. If Gore is right (his lifestyle sure doesn't sound convinced) and can get the private sector and investors to buy into his ideas than that's his business and I don't really care a bit what he's doing. But when he demands that the government gets involved and forces people to go along with what might very well be a charade, it's going to end up costing taxpayers. There are too many companies out there just waiting for a check from uncle sam (solyndra) who have no product to offer at all. The lower class are going to be the hardest hit in the end.

[CougarClaw]

I actually appreciate Boise's comments because the key part of Gore's linked article is that rather than debunk Global warming scientifically, the opposing view is changing the debate. It's not one of warming, but one of power i.e. "Gore is a hypocrite" "governments are doing this with ulterior motives"," it's a scare tactic" which is actually a very persuasive approach (beit True or false).

most of you sound like you believe Global warming is a farce, but your rationale has more to do with power arguments, than scientific ones. Perhaps it is a power grab, but that doesn't make the underlying argument untrue. And yes Declo a big-time scientist resigned over global warming but compare that to a quote from Gore's article:

"This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."

So now the "power" argument goes, 'all those groups are paid off' or 'these groups are lying' ,or "they receive funding from the government'. But that's a lot of scientific power and a lot of people to buy-off. Granted this is the same scientific community that once declared the earth flat, among other gaffes, so they're not without fault but I'm not sure I'm buying the power argument anymore.