The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by leejo

I would never, nor have I ever, claimed that climate change is not occurring. If the climate ever achieves a steady state, I will be very interested and very afraid.

What about the opposite, though - increased fluctuation with a rapidly rising average? Changing ecosystems as a result. Very interested?

Originally Posted by leejo

"Climate Change", on the other hand, is code for "global warming" which is code for "man-made global warming". How can any of these things be rationally dismissed? By reviewing the evidence. We have had many pages of rational discussion about this evidence or that evidence, and intelligent people disagree on how to interpret the evidence.

These are major assumptions, and in my view incorrect. Climate change most certainly does not mean man-made global warming. You are right saying that by reviewing the evidence, man-made global warming can be rationally dismissed. I am arguing that climate change or global warming, however, is very real, is documented, and can not be rationally ignored or dismissed. It may be a mostly natural cycle or it may be greatly influenced by industrialization, but it is happening right now and can not be ignored. This is the point I am trying to make, and is why I tend to find mockery of the subject as pointless and futile as the dire claims made by the media and various activists.

Originally Posted by leejo

One common theme that I see in people who are most concerned with "climate change" is their assumption that people who disagree with them are ignorant or biased. That's arrogant. Taking that position before the entire story is known is foolish.

You are making assumptions when you say this, and in this case is not my point at all. Anyone is logically and rationally free to disagree with the level of mankind's involvement in climate change, the specific atmospheric causes and effects of climate change, and even the model forecasts regarding weather, ice and sea level changes. I am only making the assertion that dismissing the entire subject of current climate change as a non-issue is ignorant. Without being too specific, there is only one posting so far in this thread (and it's not yours, leejo) that seems to speak to this. That's specifically what I was commenting on.

I've said this many times before. My motivation on this is born out of a deep concern for the planet itself. Humans seem to have this notion that they always know what is best, yet they so clearly do not. Humans are apparently the only species to have become aware of their true surroundings, but have not yet mastered the inner workings of the natural world. In many cases humans have harmed the planet - often times harming ourselves in the process (overfishing, pollution, envrionmental contamination i.e. Libby,MT). It is my belief that the dismissal of climate change and atmospheric health is an ignorant and possibly fatal mistake.

[GlobalWarmin]

According to the speakers at a congressional hearing about how scientific reports from government agencies about global warming are being edited, "climate change" is actually a term coined by the GOP, and so scientists prefer to say "global warming". I used to think that climate change was the better term to use, until I learned that.

I'm sure if anyone wants to watch that hearing (it took place in March I think), they could probably find it somewhere on the Internet or in a CSPAN archive.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I used to think that climate change was the better term to use, until I learned that.

That's hilarious. But I understand. I used to think the word "is" was pretty useful but I stopped using it after Bill Clinton did his "is is" thing.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by leejo

That's hilarious. But I understand. I used to think the word "is" was pretty useful but I stopped using it after Bill Clinton did his "is is" thing.

Haha

I was under the false impression that "climate change" was being used to more completely describe the rapid changes to the environment. I figured that since the issue has to do with rising sea levels, animal migration, the interplay of different pollutants, etc. that "climate change" was being used to encompass all the effects and avoid people from viewing the "warming" as a good thing. When it comes down to it though, the phenomenon is really about warming, so "global warming" is the appropriate term. Just like I wouldn't refer to pulling the troops out of Iraq as "retreat and defeat" (or whatever catch-phrase is being used), I wouldn't want to say "climate change" when I'm talking about global warming.

I don't really see how "climate change" is better for the GOP than "global warming" though. I almost think climate change sounds more threatening than global warming. People love warm weather. I suppose the strategy is to help confuse people by calling global warming by a different name, and at the same time create a term that itself denies global warming, by not using terminology that relates to warming in any way.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/pop...fier=&mtype=WM

[Switch]

It amazes me that people can be so cynical about global warming, so ready to talk about how its a business move that promotes needless products and services while at the same time many of these people refuse to apply the same cynicism to the war where it is clearly evident that big business is a major driving force in its promotion.

[Kerostasis]

You're going to have to explain to me how the worldview that questions the media-science-reports on Global Warming should also be the same worldview that questions the geo-political importance of establishing peace in Iraq, because I'm not really following you. Nearly every potential crisis can be leveraged to make money for someone, but the real question is whether the other, non-financial lines of reasoning are valid.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/pop...fier=&mtype=WM

Did anyone listen to this interview with the guy from the national snow and ice data center? It was interesting that he brought up some of the recent international 'claims' to arctic territory due to the fact that the sea ice is melting at such a rate that many territories that were once locked in permanent sea ice are rapidly becoming reachable via open water. It's so human to think that instead of doing what we collectively can to balance or buffer this rapid shift in our planetary environment , we'll perpetually argue and spin over whose fault it is, or how much of it is our own doing while governments secretly rush to grab newly exposed land. Imagine the irony in global warming re-igniting the cold war between the US and Russia. How unbelievably foolish our species can be.

[AMosely]

I may have my doubts about the UN, but I agree with the larger goals here.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an unprecedented summit on climate change Monday that ''the time for doubt has passed'' and a breakthrough is needed in global talks to sharply reduce emissions of global-warming gases.

''The U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating global action,'' Ban told assembled presidents and premiers, an apparent caution against what some see as a U.S. effort to open a separate negotiating track.

The U.N. chief also addressed a chief U.S. objection to negotiated limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, that it will be too damaging to the American economy.

''Inaction now will prove the costliest action of all in the long term,'' Ban said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, another speaker opening the summit, told the international delegates U.S. states are taking action.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/worl...rssnyt&emc=rss

[AMosely]

The Times ran an article today on changing Republican views on global warming / climate change.

The debate among Republicans is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it.

I completely agree with this logic, as I have stated before that the 'people' factor may indeed be immeasurable. The climate and Earth's ecosystems, however, are measurable and they are rapidly changing. The overly politicized debate over this needs to end, and we need to immediately start carefully managing these changes from all angles - climatology, hydrology, life sciences/ecology as well as practicality - conservation and emissions reduction wherever possible.

On a side note, I thought it both fitting and telling that the IPCC (could care less about Gore) was recognized with a Nobel prize this year. Again, take it or leave it, these are all major indicators of a strong societal shift.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Again, take it or leave it, these are all major indicators of a strong societal shift.

Well I agree with you there. :]

[TG_JBRanger]

Now, I’m not saying I know all there is to know about global warming or even what’s being done or being talked about it to prevent it. More like closer to the completely oblivious to the “real” truth about it. All I know is trashing the environment with waste in any form is bad. We are stewards of this planet and we should take care of it, cause well we have to live in it. It’s like trashing your apartment and then having to live there. With all that said, too many times the arguments on global warming change from discussing the issue at hand to chasing rabbits like the war or other things and even personal insults. As like now this thread has devolved into semantics about what people call it. Who cares if it’s called “Big Honkin’ pile of crap in the corner”. Something needs to be done about it. I think we’re doing better than we have been through education of the facts and people being more responsible through recycling however we have a LOOONG way to go to get out of the mess.

I personally feel as helping the environment in different ways is definitely not a bad thing to be doing. However, the climate has changed before and will change in the future. I sometimes feel that that fact is over-hyped in some circles. Even the people that most may think is in the other park of thinking that it is over-hyped still recycle normal everyday items and in that respect help out in a small way.

[xanathemax]

It seems that the only thing we can hope for, as with any scientific paradigm shift, is that the old anti-environmentalist stalwarts will die off and be replaced by more sensible people.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I completely agree with this logic, as I have stated before that the 'people' factor may indeed be immeasurable. The climate and Earth's ecosystems, however, are measurable and they are rapidly changing. The overly politicized debate over this needs to end, and we need to immediately start carefully managing these changes from all angles - climatology, hydrology, life sciences/ecology as well as practicality - conservation and emissions reduction wherever possible.

Wait, you agree that human impact on the climate may be immeasurable, but you still think that if everyone stops driving SUVs and starts using solar power that it will change something? It will, for sure, but it might be an immeasurable change!

And that's where I have a problem. There's been nothing definitive to come out that says that SUVs and air conditioners are causing the climate change, and yet, some people want to make laws that will drastically change my lifestyle anyway. I'm not down with that...

[Switch]

Its rather obvious that our economic activity and the lifestyle it supports has a harmful effect on our environment. Global climate change is only one aspect of how we're pissing in our own pool. People want to believe that its unreasonable to assert that we are causing environmental harm so that they can absolve themselves of any responsibility.

That's all there is to it. The evidence is about as inconclusive as whether or not smoking is addictive. And I realize that it doesn't matter whether or not smoking is addictive since 4/5 doctors recommend it and its been shown to prevent cancer.