What do you think is more likely, that virtually ever PhD level expert on Earth is wrong, or that you, a completely untrained novice sees something they didn’t think of?
Seriously, accept for a moment that the vast majority of climate scientists think the world is heating as a result of man’s activities. Why would you think you know anywhere near enough to scoff? Do you honestly think no one brought up the lava, ice thing?
Do you call up brain surgeons and advise them too?
This argument is incredibly dumb. It’s like saying “I don’t believe in man-made mass death, because mass human die-outs happened before World War I”. Or “There’s no way this mass blackout was caused by an EMP detonation because there have been mass blackouts in the past without EMP detonation”. It doesn’t even begin to address the actual evidence involved in determining why people think the current warming is anthropogenic, it demands a complete lack of understanding as to why previous warming happens, and is basically based on ignorance of past, present, and future. Seriously, cut this bullshit out. Warming in the past was caused by various forms of forcing; the current dominant forcing is human greenhouse gas emissions.
When I go camping, I don’t bother to put out my campfire when I leave. After all, forest fires happen naturally all the time, so *clearly *humans can’t cause forest fires.
I’ll be a little kinder… Most of what you wrote here is correct. The earth’s climate has changed tremendously without our “help” in the past. However, that does not preclude the fact that it is changing now because of what we are doing and it is changing more rapidly than ever before.
Whether or not it’s caused by people, we need to behave as if our actions have impact.
To do otherwise would be foolish, as we don’t have a backup planet. If we ruin Earth, we are SOP.
Many technologies or culture shifts would benefit us even if there is no global warming link.
Lots and lots of reasons why using oil, for example, is bad for our planet.
I don’t think that’s a reasonable position. If we don’t know, then you can’t expect people to act. Furthermore:
ACC is not going to “ruin Earth”. Some places will be more habitable and some places less. The problem is, lots of people live where it’s going to be less habitable.
Not necessarily, if you’re poor-- which most people on the earth are.
Poor people everywhere will certainly benefit from the development of fusion power and other clean technologies.
Same way that poor peoples’ live have been enhanced by gasoline engines. It’s slower than in rich nations, but there.
Somalia or downtown (modern) Detroit is better off with internal combustion than if they had horses.
Habitable, farmable places aren’t really in abundance.
You’re right that we may gain some as well as lose some though.
It’s not a gamble I personally want to take.
I still see the typical jerkiness of humans not allowing immigration as one big reason why I think a lot of death and unrest is coming, it does not need to be.
But while I’m an optimist on humanity continuing to progress, I’m a pessimist regarding several regions of the earth as I think most countries will prefer those regions of the earth to slide into chaos rather than allow the free movement of people needed to minimize that future unrest.
Of course population control is and should be part of the solution, but guess who are opposed to that also for conservative reasons?
Most of the same voices that deny anthropologically driven climate change also accuse the proponents of going for “one child” China totalitarian control when family planning is mentioned.
Keep that in mind the next time a “do nothing” repeats the population control issue as a distraction, because many are on the contradictory record of opposing also population control because contraceptives and abortion are involved and also opposed by the normally extreme conservatives that **also **do not like the recommended solutions to control emissions.
You’re wasting your time. There is no information that will dissuade the religionists on climate change (which I accept as fact). They see it as a rationalization for doing things they’d like to have done, and some of which we should be doing regardless. But you see their interpretation of the data arguing for leftist dreams like that we should allow “the free movement of peoples around the globe”. :rolleyes:
Like I said, don’t waste your time. I hesitate to even add this to this thread because I know it will result in a palisade of regurgitated and re-regugitated cites from the evangelists. Just give 'em an “Amen, brother” and go and enjoy the day.
To the evangelists, Preach it harder and longer brothers and sisters. You’re just one cite away of convincing everyone that the sky is falling. TYPE LOUDER!
As noticed before, when they accuse the proponents of this of being evangelists or just followers of religion, what they are really saying is that they ran out of ideas.
Not to mention that in context that point is really dumb as the ones using religion are the ones that deny the science and the recommended solutions.
[QUOTE= Senator Inhofe]
Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.
[/QUOTE]
I’d just like to note that this post is from someone who thinks that his layman’s understanding of a complex issue is superior to the thousands of working scientists in the field.
Your ignorance isn’t as good as someone else’s knowledge.
But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I agree that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age.
I know how much you like a simple, black and white world, but a good bumper sticker needs to be shorter.
What you “think” and “know” are not the same thing. And the hubris of your position—both politically and scientifically—reminds me of the time “scientists” thought that the sun revolved around the earth.
Well Earth has only been entirely molten lava a few times very early in our history and it had nothing to do with climatological factors. My understanding is initially when the Earth came together most of it was molten just from the heat and energy of all the dust and elements that had collected together in a big sphere to form the proto-earth. Then it cooled. Then later a large planet-sized object slammed into Earth and the immense reaction caused the entire Earth to be molten again for awhile, and also the heavier elements from both planets fell into the Earth while some of the ejecta spun off and coalesced into a smaller body that got locked in orbit with Earth (the moon.)
There has been wide climatological variance in Earth’s history. I’m particularly interested in climate change over many millions of years myself, but let’s not misrepresent it–the Earth was never covered in molten lava due to climatological factors. We have had times of snowball earth and times where there was basically no ice coverage through natural climatological processes, but let’s not overstate it.
Not directly comparable. I remember the 70s “Ice Age” talk, it was akin to talk now about “apocalypse when the Earth’s magnetic field reverses” talk. Yes, some people who were vaguely scientists were talking about a new Ice Age in the 70s, just like some were warning about the effects of the Earth’s magnetic field reversing polarity here recently.
But in neither of those cases did it become a major issue, with large bodies of concerned scientists meeting together, forming committees and organizations to research it. Nor did it produce hundreds and hundreds of reams of scientifically accepted peer reviewed studies.
It was basically an idea that was based in part on some small set of cold years in the United States and some data and it never got further than that, it was never taken seriously by the scientific community. If there had been genuine global cooling that had kept going on and on and on most likely you’d see all kinds of organizations like we have now for Climate Change but discussing what we could do to stop a new Ice Age.
There were a few television programs that ran in the 70s that were “popular science” type documentaries and basically were playing to sensationalize, I believe one was narrated by Leonard Nimoy. That’s by far where most people get this idea we had worries of an Ice Age in the 70s. It was never taken all that seriously by the mainstream scientific community.
Global warming on the other hand started to get steam as early as the 80s and especially by the early 90s. It has grown since then because scientific consensus has been built over many years. This stuff didn’t just start with the Kyoto Treaty or the IPCC or Al Gore, that stuff was at the tail end of a decade or more of tons of research. Research that has been built on for years after that.
This is not a true thing. There was never scientific consensus about an imminent ice age. Global cooling - Wikipedia
You are misinformed. Please stop repeating that information. The people who told it to you were liars trying to convince you of things that are not true.
Which is just absurd, since conservatism is about simple moral choices. I’m a liberal, and if anything, I weigh nuance too much in my decision making.
This is conclusive evidence that in reality you are clueless, regardless of your claim of accepting the science.
Back in the 70’s most scientists predicted that warming was coming, even the few that suggested cooling was coming did so by overestimating the negative forcing coming from aerosol particles. Those few scientists recognized the mistake and by 1980 the consensus on warming turned into a super one.
So, once again, you need to take it with the rotten sources and politicians that misguided you. But as experience shows me, the usual with happen, you will only get upset with the ones that report on what the scientists say, not with the ones that are fooling you.
BTW, you can not use your plain ignorance as an excuse, this item was reported for years and I even posted it many times before:
So Martin Hyde is mostly correct, the only nit is that it was in the 50’s when the warning was made by a few scientists of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, because it was found that the assumptions of how CO2 captured radiation were not correct. And then in the 70’s already most scientists predicted that warming was coming, even when the popular media got it wrong.