1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Buzz112, Feb 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 8, 2007 #481 of 819
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I think I've said this before...

    but if this were all fact and not just theory and conjecture and opinion... then there would be no need for discussion.

    Once something has been proven conclusively (like say how we need to breathe to survive for more than a few minutes) then no discussion is necessary.

    Discussion only applies to things that have not yet been proven OR cannot be proven (like opinions).
     
  2. Dec 8, 2007 #482 of 819
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Or when someone wants to learn.
     
  3. Dec 9, 2007 #483 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Yes, you can volunteer to pay your taxes or you can volunteer to go to jail. Under that thought all laws are voluntary.
     
  4. Dec 9, 2007 #484 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    My asumption is that it was high school since any competent university would have done a better job of teaching the scientific method.
     
  5. Dec 9, 2007 #485 of 819
    leww37334

    leww37334 Hall Of Fame

    1,529
    0
    Sep 19, 2005
    If this were true Einsteinian physics would never have been developed and Newton's classical physics would still rule.
     
  6. Dec 9, 2007 #486 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    I hate to keep harping on the definitions since it is apparent no one here wants to acknowledge them but....

    Until scientists have facts proving their opinions (hypotheses) they do not refer to a hypothesis as a theory.

    No scientist would call global warming or climate change a theory unless they already had sufficient proof of its existence and some of its causes. The discussion continues because not everything is known about the hows and whys of the theory. Discussion on this and all scientific matters will continue and the theory will be refined as long as man exists and has an inquiring mind.

    Since most scientists (you will disagree I'm sure) are calling global warming and climate change a theory, that indicates that they have sufficient facts to have proved the existence of both.

    The problem now is how much man contributes, what can be done to reverse the trend and is it already too late?
     
  7. Dec 9, 2007 #487 of 819
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Sorry, but they simply cannot (at this time) prove or disprove "global warming" or "global climate change" much less can they prove that man is the cause of either.

    As reasonable people, we can accept climate changes over time... but who knows how much time elapses for those climate changes to become measurably significant?

    We only have a few thousand years at most of semi-recorded history... and only a hundred (maybe two if you stretch things) of semi-recorded climate data... In the scheme of things, and the projected timespan that the planet has been here, that is not even close to a reasonable sampling to deduce that we are the cause of anything.

    In fact... if you look at the data being used by some scientists to "prove" global warming trends... you see they are using data that reflects similar peaks of temperatures from several hundred years ago, long before industrialized civilization. So... even if their data is valid, their own data tends to disprove corellation with anything we are doing today as being directly llinked.

    This is a big planet... and we simply do not know enough about it or science to make some of the "we know it is true" grandiose claims that I hear sometimes in the news.
     
  8. Dec 9, 2007 #488 of 819
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member

    8,687
    38
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Global climate change appears to be irrefutable; it's the assertion that Man is behind it that is unprovable.
     
  9. Dec 9, 2007 #489 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    You should go on a lecture tour to help educate all the scientists and others who have accepted the global warming/climate change theories. Apparently you know more than they do. You have made it obvious to me that all the scientific evidence gathered, observations made and experiments performed are of little value when all the scientists really had to do was ask for your opinion.
     
  10. Dec 9, 2007 #490 of 819
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,320
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Oh, you think this is the put down forum? In that case the reply would include something about Junior High ... or kindergarden. :rolleyes:

    I suppose on further review you have decided to change your conclusion (just like global warming scientists have changed their conclusions)?

    Instead of telling us how stupid we are (or trying to) how about telling us in one short post where you stand on the issues of global warming? What do you believe? It all comes down to belief anyways.

    There is a reason why scientists call their results theories. Scientists are not stupid enough to claim absolutes on issues that may be reversed upon further study and review.
     
  11. Dec 9, 2007 #491 of 819
    Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,837
    45
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    I followed your link, and checked to see who the principals were in the organization. Turns out they are all members of the Idso family. Not that I want to refute everything they say and quote, but I kinda wonder about a family run organization whose mission seems to be one of contradicting all studies that run counter to their opinion. In the paper cited by you, they conveniently dismiss studies by NASA and others that say the glacier melt is significant.
     
  12. Dec 9, 2007 #492 of 819
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    If they would pay me to do so, I'd gladly oblige :)

    I never said that... but it wouldn't surprise me if I did. Lots of the "experts" don't seem to know as much as they think... For instance, one thing I routinely plonk the "experts" on... did you know that water is a poor conductor of electricity? In fact, water is a very good insulator. It is impurities in water that actually conduct electricity... not the water itself. BUT, despite this very easily proven fact of nature... the "experts" routinely get it wrong.

    Not that it has a direct relation to global warming discussions... but when scientists get some very basic things horribly wrong, it makes it harder for me to take their theories at face value.


    Where is all the scientific evidence gathered that proves the current theories about global warming and proves that man is the cause? I must have missed all that proof... because if such proof exists there would be no further need to discuss. The facts are that there is no such proof. None of the "experts" will actually produce this proof because it doesn't exist.
     
  13. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Not to keep beeting on a dead horse or anything, but what you have here is patently not true. First, you don't hear much about rain forest elimination anymore, mainly because it's not happening - at least not in the Amazon basin. The rainforest has actually been growing in those areas.

    Second, the rainforest is NOT the largest mechanism for conversion of CO2 to Oxygen - the ocean does that. The ocean acts as a giant CO2 pump, pulling it out of the air. It's the reason that some scientists today are recommending dumping iron - yes iron - into the oceans. Iron content seems to be a prerequisite for algae formation, and it is the algae that is responsible for pulling the CO2 out of the air.

    Third, not all trees are net CO2 pumps. Older growth trees tend to be CO2 producers, not CO2 consumers. And as trees die and decay, all that CO2 gets floated right back into the atmosphere. In reality the rain forest is almost totally inconsequential with regard to global temperature.
     
  14. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Duh....I do believe that most scientists are aware of 7th grade science experiments.

    You would be referring to distilled water. Where in nature does distilled water exist naturally? Even rainwater has impurities that the water droplets form around. Not that any of this had to do with the subject other than to show that you are grasping at straws.
     
  15. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I'm still waiting for the incontrovertible proof of man causing global warming. I noticed that you conveniently forgot to provide it :)
     
  16. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Where is this information the Amazon rain forest is growing? I've heard there are programs/projects to reduce the deforestation, but the last photos I saw still show significant fires as they were clearing land.

    Second, doesn't algae only grow in the shallow seas where there is enough light? There is a lot of ocean, but I don't think algae grown in the deep ocean.

    Third, I know plants consume oxygen, but I've never heard they "exhale" CO2. During the day, photosynthesis produces more than they consume. I agree that any carbon a plant stores will be returned to the environment. Burning would make it faster than decaying I'd guess, but "what goes in must come out", unless it gets buried.
    This is where the burning of fossil fuels comes in. Erosion seems to have been the "key" to the change in the early atmosphere. Where "your algae" was covered with sediment breaking "the loop" of absorbing carbon and then returning it back as it decomposes.
    I try to "absorb" information and convert it to knowledge.
    A lot of this thread is just "yes it is" and "no it isn't", with little real information. Bash Bush, bash Clinton, or Al Gore is full of it.
    Skepticism is a good thing. I watched an interview with a scientist who used to be pro global warming and now isn't. I wanted to know why. He didn't rule it out, but believes there isn't enough data to prove it yet. This seems to me like a reasonable opinion. It's neither "the chicken little" nor "the ostrich" position.
    I haven't read all of this thread, but I haven't found much on the "no it isn't" side other than "I don't believe it", which would tend to say "it is", but we don't really know "how fast" yet.
    Thinking I have an open mind, I would like to keep reading about information from both sides to learn more. Opinions are fine, but how or why you come to them is much more educational. Oops, there I go again wanting to learn something, sorry. :)
     
  17. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member

    8,687
    38
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Hence the title "inconvenient truth." :D
     
  18. steve053

    steve053 Godfather

    357
    2
    May 11, 2007
    How do you quantify "most scientists"?

    This Financial Post story from June of 2007 discusses an actual poll of climate scientists from 2003 that statest the exact opposit of what you are stating.

    Yes, I am aware that the poll discussed in the article is 4 years old, but I have not read anything to date that contradicts this.

    Please share your information supporting "most scientists".

    By the way, here's a petition that is claiming to have been signed by over 19,000 US Scientits stating:

    Petition Project
     
  19. TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    IMHO Global Warming and Global Cooling are both cyclical.

    We may be heading back into a time when the Inland sea out west comes back..

    The inland sea was there and then global cooling locked up the water and it went away and now it looks like it may return. Life happens.

    When I see people making a living touting Global warming my natural cynicism erupts.
     
  20. FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    I can't imagine what proof like that, either way, would look like. Things are warmer, there's more C02 recently, but is the relationship causal or coincident? We have decent evidence that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and that average surface temps have been both much lower and much higher.

    That's why we must examine the agendas of the advocates, even though that strays into ad hominem attacks. The proof we want is out of reach.

    On one side we have environmental groups that seem to be more about hurting enterprise than saving the planet -- for example the loud silence about moving to safe, clean, nuclear energy.

    On the other we have an industrial and financial complex that stands to make trillions on continued oil consumption. That's why we've seen nothing but token moves to alternative energy since the last energy crisis.

    So how do we sort it out for the undecided?

    For myself it is important not to hobble the industrial leaders and let the developing countries to pollute at will, ala Kyoto. Cook fires fueled by wood and dung across Africa and Asia pollute greatly, and we can argue about the relative scales, some experts put the carbon output of the cook fires close to that of American automobiles, but if I am going to give up my driving and lower my standard of living my raising my energy costs, the Sudanese and Indians need to dowse those cook fires. Let them eat salads. Of course I am kidding.

    The replacement for oil will not come out of diffuse alternative energy sources; it will arise from a massive engineering and commerical effort. We could be running on hydrogen right now, but the outlay will be in the tens of trillions of dollars, and it will take decades of strong economic growth to make it happen.

    And of course economic growth helps everyone directly or indirectly and is the best hope for the third world to rise up out of their quasi-neolithic squalor. The sooner they trade in the cook fires for microwaves and join us in the obesity crisis the better.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page