Do you believe in global warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?Not necessarily
If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming? It’s possible but I don’t think individually. It could be due to either jetstream activity or HAARP or something the government is doing. Or, it could just that the climate is changing on its own like it has in the past - in other words, a normal variation over time.
What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming? Nothing except maybe he is a person that doesn’t swallow every theory that comes along.
What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?Same as above - Nothing.
 
But they do know how to apply for funding grant. You can’t get funding to study a problem that you scientifically declare doesn’t exist. 👍
Oh, but you can get funding to prove the other guys are all wet. That’s how you make a name for yourself: show that yes, spotted owls do nest in second growth, not just in old growth, and so on.

You are right about this: there are people whose concern is that if you find that spotted owls don’t need old growth, then you will have robbed them of a warm-fuzzy poster child for why to not cut down old-growth forests. They might even have lots of numbers that show other reasons not to cut those particular trees, but numbers don’t sway people like big round eyes. There are some of those who will go after you all out of proportion to whatever issues there are with your data. There are others who will take your preliminary finding and say, “See? There is no reason not to cut these trees, the owls will be fine!!” So yes, politics and agendas play a part in how the data get to the general public, which makes these controversies hard to sort out.

IOW, while I’m taking great issue with using words like “baseless” or “wackjobs”, I can only agree with you that there are plenty of agendas to go around on both sides, that is true, and those agendas (and the ferocity with which the opposite agendas are held) present a great temptation to think “oh, we have this all figured out, and therefore we know just have to fight to get everyone else to do the right thing.” The path from science to public policy is rarely so simple as those who understand human nature and political reality try to make it sound.

There are so many different controversies that could legitimately have different solutions that are still within moral law, and so much information to consider when deciding them–physical evidence, social science, economics, geopolitical situations, the list goes on–it is almost overwhelming to try to consider some of this stuff. It is one of those things that make these hard times.

Oh, well, let us give thanks for all the things that make these very good times, and take up the tasks that the not-so-good realities present. Every generation has their work to do; this is ours.
 
I was reading an article about someone I know today, and it made me think of this thread. This person has been taking measurements for the National Weather Service at least twice a day since 1930; he’s currently 100 years old. He’s stated that he believes global warming is real, and his decades of data indicate a trend toward warming.
 
Unfortunately there are no reliable data sets over the last couple of centuries to utilize to determine if there is a trend. The Mann ‘hockey diagram’ indicating a recent upswing is based on algorithms which will produce that same graph even when fed random data.
Wrong – read his CLIMATE WARS book. I know Mike and I trust him a lot more than I trust people here.
 
I changed my mind. You need to talk about global warning before you marry someone. If his answers make you want to clock him with a cast iron skillet while he sleeps, you probably ought to take your intuition seriously.
 
Oh, and find out how he feels about the Yankees, the Cowboys, LeBron James, and processed American cheese. You’ll want to know that, too. They asked a lot of questions like this at Engaged Encounter, but they neglected those, as I remember.
 
I suppose this is really a four-part question.

  1. *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
    *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
    *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
    *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

    Thank you in advance.

  1. (1) Maybe, maybe not
    (2) Maybe, maybe not
    (3) Doesn’t matter, can’t do anything about it one way or another
    (4) Doesn’t matter, can’t do anything about it one way or another
 
I changed my mind. You need to talk about global warning before you marry someone. If his answers make you want to clock him with a cast iron skillet while he sleeps, you probably ought to take your intuition seriously.
I’m not sure that wanting to clock someone with an iron skillet over a difference of opinion is a healthy response to any issue.
 
I suppose this is really a four-part question.

  1. *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
    *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
    *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
    *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

    Thank you in advance.
    1. I don’t think so. At least I find it very weird that twenty years ago when I was a child our summer used to be very hot for 3 or 4 months and now we have one month of moderate heat and the rest of the summer time seems spring. One hot day, the other day is cloudy and then rains.
      I believe that if the world was indeed heating we would still have more summer hot days and we don’t. Why is that on some places is hotter and here in this side of Europe its getting colder?
    2. If it was getting hotter I guess it could be the human population since it has increased a lot in the last centuries.
    3. I don’t know. I’m not a scientist I guess people believe what they want. Some believe in God others don’t. Some believe in global warming others don’t. Doesn’t make them better or worse.
    4. Each person is entitled to their opinion I don’t have to agree 100% with my partners view on life. Actually I think we’re only agreeing in about 10% 😃
 
Really great response. It bears repeating. You must be a denier. LOL

:rotfl::rotfl::whistle:
Well, actually no. I consider myself objective, and the first problem in global warming is that all of the temperature sets being used aren’t consistent, as I stated in item number 1. I can’t say whether the earth has warmed or cooled over the last 100 years because of that issue alone, We just know it’s been warmer and cooler in the past, so whatever variance we see today could be from natural phenomena alone.

Since the studies dropped/added changed various measuring stations and those stations themselves have experienced both urbanization and variances in measurement error, the temperatures being compared from 120 years ago really aren’t apples to apples with the ones being used 40 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago and today.

Based on those data sets, I can’t conclude either an increase or decrease. And the satellite surface temperature measuring system hasn’t really been in place long enough to provide a statistically significant amount of data compared to the previous eons.

And since we know that the earth has been warmer in the past, we have to understand the natural mechanisms that cause warming and whether/how much those are contributing to the current climate/temperature as a baseline prior to being able to determine any impacts from human activities.

But we do know that the carbon/greenhouse gas theory predicts higher temperatures than we’ve actually been seeing. Which means it’s wrong in some respect, either magnitude of the impact or the mechanism.
 
Wrong – read his CLIMATE WARS book. I know Mike and I trust him a lot more than I trust people here.
I read the report of the programmer trying to recreate the report, i.e., the scientific method. Look at the researchers data and methodology- what he looked at and how he came to his conclusions. It’s interesting to say the least.

UN IPCC data setvalidity/credibility
hotair.com/archives/2010/02/07/even-more-problems-found-in-ipcc-report-on-agw/
pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-one/

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

Mechanism:
news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Magnitude
guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122
reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/us-atlas-ice-idUSTRE78I4UG20110919
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Sorry, thought I had the report compiling the urbanization changes/locations of measuring stations bookmarked but can’t find it at the moment.
 
I’m not sure that wanting to clock someone with an iron skillet over a difference of opinion is a healthy response to any issue.
That’s what happens when you present reasonable and factual information to a person that doesn’t care about those things.
 
Here is also part of the problem, looking at regional vice world-wide data. Good article on US trends (cooling vice warming 2000-2010), but that doesn’t inform us on what is going on world-wide.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/#more-50527

Yet again, is that cooling trend even accurate given the errors in the actual measuring stations themselves? (these errors were actually biased towards warming) Global warming supporters claim they adjust for those errors (as I said in my first post- controversy over magnitude of urbanization effect)-- but there’s no record that I am aware of where all stations were actually surveyed and assessed for their studies. I’m only aware of the skeptics or folks trying to replicate studies assessing the stations afterwards.

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

But to get back on topic. For the OP, I wouldn’t be concerned with a person’s position on global warming, I would be interested in the reasoning behind their position.
 
I suppose this is really a four-part question.

  1. *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
    *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
    *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
    *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

    Thank you in advance.

  1. The natural state for the Earth is ice. We are living in an unusual warm spell which will eventually end.

    I believe in God. I don’t believe in theories.
    I think that this business of believing that human beings have the capacity to control or cause weather is akin to the many types of rain dances and sacrifices of the ancient and not so ancient past. We can sacrifice all we want but that will not have one tiny effect on what the sun will do or the effects of plate tectonics or the rhythms of the oceans.

    Should we take care of our planet? Yes of course. But the global warming hysteria is simply that. A hysteria that will some day be laughed at.
 
Wrong – read his CLIMATE WARS book. I know Mike and I trust him a lot more than I trust people here.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/01/climate-change-skeptic-group-accuses-scientists-of-using-selective-temperature-data.html

The folks advocating the global warming studies may have had good reasons for dropping out the Siberain and Northern Canadian monitoring stations, I just am not aware of what they were. However, for consistency and accuracy they would have needed to have been dropped out of the earlier temperature assessments as well for apples-to-apples comparisons.
 
Oh, and find out how he feels about the Yankees, the Cowboys, LeBron James, and processed American cheese. You’ll want to know that, too. They asked a lot of questions like this at Engaged Encounter, but they neglected those, as I remember.
Now this latter is a very serious issue. As a sports orphan, I would never have wanted to marry anyone who was into spectator sports…and luckily tho it wasn’t in my prayer for a good husband, my husband is not into sports, tho he was a badminton champ in HS and college back in India. God knows what we want and need even if we forget to ask for it.

OTOH, my dad did take me to the very first San Diego Chargers game and that was exciting – Jack Kemp was the quarterback & did really well to help them win, the trumpets going da-da-da-da-da-da-CHARGE!.

And then many decades later (I think in 1985) I watched the Superbowl bec we were living up there near Chicago and I wanted to see the Bears play (with the Frig as fullback). However, bec I had intentionally NOT taught hubby the rules of the game, I couldn’t get him interested in the game, and he thought I was a bit bonkers shouting and screaming about the Bears winning.

So sports teams and attitudes might be up there with global warming.
 
…the first problem in global warming is that all of the temperature sets being used aren’t consistent, as I stated in item number 1. I can’t say whether the earth has warmed or cooled over the last 100 years because of that issue alone…
Professional climate scientists are also aware of those problems, just as much as the amateur climate scientists are, and they make adjustments all the time on those datasets.

Maybe scientists need their thermometers, bec they need to be more techy-exact and avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making an untrue claim (or their reputations will be tarnished and no one will believe them again – like the boy who called wolf).

However, I am a person concerned about life on planet earth (not my reputation), and to me the melting glaciers around the world on various continents and melting arctic ice with the before and after photos, sews it up very well for me. I am into avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to mitigate a serious problem that could wipe out much or perhaps even all of life on earth. We are the villagers who do not want to be eaten up by that wolfl.

Plus I value younger generations and the poor of the world who are at risk of suffering the most (in order that we might blow dry our hair, instead of letting it dry naturally).

I was willing to sacrifice to mitigate GW, but to my surprise found that nearly all of what I have done to reduce my GHG emissions to 60%+ below our 1990 level (which have also reduced lots of other concomitant pollution that causes health problems, deaths, and “natural” abortions), either had no cost, entailed very little time/effort, or saved us mucho dinero while increasing our living standard – to the net effect of saving us many $1000s over the decades. And there is still lots of gold in them thar hills of mitigating climate change for us to go out an pick up as on an Easter egg hunt. Next I hope to go solar and really save big time.

I hope to get our emissions down by more than 75% before I die, and hopefully inspire others to do likewise, at least for the money they can save, if not for saving lives, or, rather, reducing killing people, human fetuses, and others of God’s creatures.
But we do know that the carbon/greenhouse gas theory predicts higher temperatures than we’ve actually been seeing. Which means it’s wrong in some respect, either magnitude of the impact or the mechanism.
These ideas that the GH effect is the only cause of warming … or has absolutely no impact … are both wrong. There are many factors that cause warming/cooling, with the GH effect being just one, and usually in the past only a positive feedback to something else causing the initial warming – except during the end-Permian great warming and extinction of 90%+ of life on earth, which they say was triggered by the burning Siberian traps & coal seams on Pangea.

As for the recent short-term (10-15 years) stall in the warming (but note the temps have not decreased down to 1960s or even the 1980 level), it is being caused by one or more of those cooling effects cancelling out the warming effect: We know there has been a solar irradiance minimum for the past 10-15 years, which should have sent temps down to the 1960s level IF there were no human-enhanced GH effect from GHGs. There is also indication that some of that would-be atmospheric warming (from the heat imbalance caused by the enhanced GH effect) has gone instead into warming the deep ocean.

This is like kitchen physics 101: a watched pot never boils. esp a big pot like the ocean. I actually think it is a lot easier for housewives to understand global warming than scientists in non-climate science fields. And also easier for them to have concern for future generations than those focused only on that Sat nite date or than those assorted money grubbers striving to catch that elusive bird in the bush lottery/stockmarket/business/crime big haul, as they release the two money & life saving GW mitigation birds in their hands.

I just wish people would put on their thinking caps a bit more to understand this important issue. But more than that I wish people would develop hearts, esp bleeding hearts. And put on Jesus.

Whatever happened to mercy and compassion?
 
The folks advocating the global warming studies may have had good reasons for dropping out the Siberain and Northern Canadian monitoring stations, I just am not aware of what they were. However, for consistency and accuracy they would have needed to have been dropped out of the earlier temperature assessments as well for apples-to-apples comparisons.
Look, another point that Mike himself even admits, his data and studies are not needed to prove global warming. It was already established theory-wise some 100 years ago when they discovered the natural greenhouse effect and speculated that industial emissions would cause increased warming, which at the time the Swedish Arrhenius thought would be sort of nice. And it already established evidence-wise by 1995, well before Mike published his studies, with that evidence increasing and becoming evermore robust from many different angles (not just temp stations).

But the OP here is about what to do regarding a loved one having a different idea about GW. If one is already married, or these are blood relatives, then one has to make the best out of a situation that might cause contention…such as just avoiding the topic, or trying to convince the person…or seeking common ground, such as doing things that mitigate climate change while also helping in other ways (financiall, environmentally, resource-saving) with which the loved one is in agreement.

If one is not yet married to that person, then they have to decide if ideas re GW are a serious enough area of disagreement to perhaps call off the marriage. I would call it off in an instant, and would never have gotten involved romantically with such a person in the first place. Bec a person in denial about GW says to me “I don’t care about life on earth,” and that is a non-negotiable for me. Others here may and certainly will differ in their judgment of such a person. And others accepting climate science will have to figure out just how important the issue is to them. But he/she should also consider this GW problem is just going to get worse and worse, and the loved one may dig in his/her heels in greater and greater denial (which is sort of what is happening). So there will be not only this internal source of marital conflict, but also the external sources of disasters and harms from GW putting more and more stress on marriage and other relationships.

Some studies have indicated there is 2.4C warming in the pipes already, even if our emissions go down to zero today (hopefully they are way off base). If it gets to 3C, perhaps even 2C, warming that would trigger positive feedbacks from melting arctic permafrost and ocean hydrates, releasing vast gigatons of methane (it’s already beginning to happen). Some scientists think this methane is could trigger runaway warming, while others say the biggest problem would not be that methane is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2 (afterall its molecules only lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere), but that methane degrades into CO2 and other substances, and a portion of CO2 can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years – that is the problem, the CO2. See realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ and realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

We are poking a sleeping dragon here, and jeopardizing our children’s future. Why not mitigate GW (no matter what one’s opinion), save money, prevent other harms, and reduce risk of GW harms. It just does not make any sense at all not to mitigate GW (or other problem entailing CO2 emissions), unless one is into some Freudian thanatos mode … or works for an oil/gas/coal company or related business.
 
…We are poking a sleeping dragon here, and jeopardizing our children’s future. Why not mitigate GW (no matter what one’s opinion), save money, prevent other harms, and reduce risk of GW harms. It just does not make any sense at all not to mitigate GW (or other problem entailing CO2 emissions), unless one is into some Freudian thanatos mode … or works for an oil/gas/coal company or related business.
Okay, for the sake of argument. Let us close down the coal mines, spend billions of dollars on windmills, spend billions of dollars sun related energy and then, instead of warming, the Earth begins to cool down - considerably. Windmills do not work well in the snow and ice. The cost of coal and oil has by that time sky-rocketed and the sun is not shinning all that much in the winter. People are freezing to death in the snow covered streets of the big cities.

What have we done to the children’s future then? Global cooling is a far greater danger than global warming could ever be and is a more likely scenario given the knowledge of the thousands upon thousands of years of ice ages and the very few thousands of years of warmth. It is easy to be worried about global warming when we are warm and well fed. Being cold and hungry without the real resources to deal with it, will be a very serious problem.
 
Besides CO2 is a good thing. It is what the GREEN plants thrive on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top