Topic: "Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change"

[arrowspace90]

ok, for the sake of dissucsion. I believe that the global climate is warming. I also believe that human activities have contributed to a certain extent. Now with that being said, what do I/we do from here?

Basically, keep as much fossil fuel as possible in the ground.  We can do that in a number of ways, such as finding alternative sources of energy, and reducing our consumption.  Reduce the rate of deforestation, and replace the forests that we have already consumed.

What he said, but where can I get a tie-dyed tee shirt like that?

Seriously folks, I am not happy with the idea of GW myself, and I would be perfectly happy if the greater scientific community realized it was all a mistake.  No one is really arguing that temps are going up, it's just a question of why it is happening.  I am not driving a prius or a volt, so I admit to being part of the problem.

[KeithBC]

That's it?  That's the answer?  Deep-pockets = cry-baby?

Well, how about this "enlightened rebuttal":

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer

.
Sure, the rest of the world struggles to get by, people starve, people struggle just to put a roof over their heads.  But in the poor old US of A people are asked to drive fuel-efficient cars.  Oh, the agony!  Oh, the suffering!  Oh the humanity!

It has nothing to do with your allegedly deep pockets.  It has to bo with being whiny cry-babies.

[belfryboy]

I'm not too sure that GW is man made, as an individual that has studied the environment I am undecided. But what I can say is that reducing any needless waste of energy (turn off your lights, knock the thermostat down a degree, wash your clothes at 30c) can only be good for a finite resource.

On and BTW look at the "cradle to grave" energy use for a Prius compared to a Grand Cherokee, and you might be a little surprised.

[W7DRM (old call was W3DRM)]

That's it?  That's the answer?  Deep-pockets = cry-baby?

Well, how about this "enlightened rebuttal":

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer

.
Sure, the rest of the world struggles to get by, people starve, people struggle just to put a roof over their heads.  But in the poor old US of A people are asked to drive fuel-efficient cars.  Oh, the agony!  Oh, the suffering!  Oh the humanity!

It has nothing to do with your allegedly deep pockets.  It has to bo with being whiny cry-babies.

I'm trying to stay civil here but boy, are you out of touch with reality! Do you have any idea how much the U.S.A. has given to the rest of the world, including Canada, and continues to give? It's not only the hard-earned cash that the citizens of the U.S.A. provide, but in the lives of our military men and women who have died in the interest of FREEDOM for everyone? Everyone seems to hate the U.S.A. but I don't see any of them saying "no thank-you" when we offer assistance of cash, technology and manpower in time of need. If you want to call that whining, then so be it.

Like it or not, the U.S.A. is still the most advanced country in the world and the most "giving" nation there is. I don't see many other countries offering to help us in times of crisis and disaster. Rarely do we ask for, or receive, help from other nations.

To keep this on the subject of Global Warming, perhaps a lot of my concern over the whole GW issue is that a lot of the rules put in place in the international arena try to force the wealthy nations (read that as the U.S.A.) to pay for the development of alternative energy in third-world countries. Again, why should we always be targeted to "pay" for another countries' problems? IMHO it's just one more way to get us to pay the way for the rest of the world.

I don't call that whining, I call that stating my frustration with the whole issue of the deep-pockets mentality in the world.

[Old Tele man]

...we (mankind) couldn't control the weather in the past, and we can't control it now...

...however, we CAN influence what it's already gonna do, both negatively and positively.

...like the proverbial "broken" record, I repeat: MANKIND is known for/by it's propensity for mistakes and unintended consequences, so, we ALL live (or, die) by or with the results of our progess/folly.

...se' la vie!

[Weather Display]

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer and provide the rest of the world with funds to run their lives and businesses?

Personally, I'm getting tired of the good 'ole U.S.A. having to sacrifice our lifestyle so we can rescue everyone else.

very disapointed that people in the USA take that stance

I don't see many other countries offering to help us in times of crisis and disaster. Rarely do we ask for, or receive, help from other nations.

again, very dispapointed with that stance too, from a country (and I will include Australia as well) that helps out the USA in times of need (with our experienced firefigthers, rescue teams, etc etc)

[W7DRM (old call was W3DRM)]

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer and provide the rest of the world with funds to run their lives and businesses?

Personally, I'm getting tired of the good 'ole U.S.A. having to sacrifice our lifestyle so we can rescue everyone else.

very disapointed that people in the USA take that stance

I don't see many other countries offering to help us in times of crisis and disaster. Rarely do we ask for, or receive, help from other nations.

again, very dispapointed with that stance too, from a country (and I will include Australia as well) that helps out the USA in times of need (with our experienced firefigthers, rescue teams, etc etc)

Brian,

Perhaps I should have used the word "expected" rather than "having" to help the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't help anyone in need, I am just saying that everyone seems to "expect" us to help and if we don't, we are whining, etc, etc. I am glad that we, as a nation, are willing and able to help others, regardless of what the need is. What I don't agree with is the international community via the UN, etc. creating laws and rules that tell us what to do with our money and resources. The last I heard, we are a sovereign nation, just as is England, Canada and Australia, and free to do whatever we wish to do with our money and resources. Hopefully, our government leaders respond to international needs in a way that is in keeping with good stewardship of the world.

Yes, England, Australia, Canada, Israel and other countries have come to our assistance in times of need such as 9-11 and that is very much appreciated.

[Old Tele man]

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer and provide the rest of the world with funds to run their lives and businesses?

Personally, I'm getting tired of the good 'ole U.S.A. having to sacrifice our lifestyle so we can rescue everyone else.

very disapointed that people in the USA take that stance

I don't see many other countries offering to help us in times of crisis and disaster. Rarely do we ask for, or receive, help from other nations.

again, very dispapointed with that stance too, from a country (and I will include Australia as well) that helps out the USA in times of need (with our experienced firefigthers, rescue teams, etc etc)

...does the recent "American Fries" incident 'jog' your memory any? We (USA) ain't "loved" everywhere by everyone...and never were!

[KeithBC]

What I don't agree with is the international community via the UN, etc. creating laws and rules that tell us what to do with our money and resources.

The atmosphere is a global resource, not an American resource.  It needs to be managed globally.

Yes, England, Australia, Canada, Israel and other countries have come to our assistance in times of need such as 9-11 and that is very much appreciated.

Thank you for that recognition.

[W7DRM (old call was W3DRM)]

What I don't agree with is the international community via the UN, etc. creating laws and rules that tell us what to do with our money and resources.

The atmosphere is a global resource, not an American resource.  It needs to be managed globally.

Yes, England, Australia, Canada, Israel and other countries have come to our assistance in times of need such as 9-11 and that is very much appreciated.

Thank you for that recognition.

Keith,

You're welcome and yes, this is a GLOBAL issue and not just something one or a few countries have the responsibility to address. However, there are many of us who don't categorically "BELIEVE" the issue is something totally caused by mankind and the use of fossil fuels in particular. We still have questions as to the validity of what is being presented to us by the scientific community. I may be wrong but, I still have the right, as a free-thinking individual, to have my own thoughts on the matter just as you and others who support the manmade GW side of the issue have you own thoughts on the matter. I still read articles from both sides and try to make a rational decision as to which one is correct. So far, I haven't found anything, IMHO, that concretely supports the manmade GW side of the issue. In other words, I haven't had my Aha! moment on the subject, just yet.

Oh BTW, I see you were in the RCAF. I am sure the citizens of Canada thank you for your service to your country, as do I. I like your inventiveness and the curiosity you have to solve your own problems around home!  Never thought about the double-flash being problematic with slave camera strobes. You have an interesting resolution to the problem. I bet your dog loves you too! Has he learned to operate the elevator himself???

[KeithBC]

So far, I haven't found anything, IMHO, that concretely supports the manmade GW side of the issue. In other words, I haven't had my Aha! moment on the subject, just yet.

And therein is the cause of the stalemate.  Since science is the only reliable way we have of determining how phenomena operate and what their causes are, if you disbelieve the science, there is nothing else. 

Science is the orderly search for knowledge.  If it is deemed to be no good, there is nothing of comparable quality to replace it. Throwing out science is throwing out knowledge.

[W7DRM (old call was W3DRM)]

So far, I haven't found anything, IMHO, that concretely supports the manmade GW side of the issue. In other words, I haven't had my Aha! moment on the subject, just yet.

And therein is the cause of the stalemate.  Since science is the only reliable way we have of determining how phenomena operate and what their causes are, if you disbelieve the science, there is nothing else. 

Science is the orderly search for knowledge.  If it is deemed to be no good, there is nothing of comparable quality to replace it. Throwing out science is throwing out knowledge.

True but when there are two or more different "scientific" views to an issue, as we have in the GW issue, the real trick is discerning which of those are true and thus, should be believed.

As I said in a previous post, I just haven't reached a point in my search for the "real answer" to make judgement one way or the other. As you can guess, I am leaning towards one side but that doesn't mean I'm closed minded to all inputs.

Anyway, science is constantly proving past theories to be wrong. It's just a matter of time and someone else having developed yet another "proven" theory that upsets the current one. I'm not sure this particular issue will ever be resolved for certain, at least not in our lifetimes...

[KeithBC]

True but when there are two or more different "scientific" views to an issue, as we have in the GW issue, the real trick is discerning which of those are true and thus, should be believed.

That is the point (perhaps the only major one) on which we disagree.  In my opinion, the distinction is not between this scientific theory and that scientific theory.  The distinction is between the scientific theory about which there is no credible dissention and pseudo-science or even anti-science dressed up in scientific language in order to fool those who cannot tell the difference.  Regrettably, the ease with which the latter is perpetrated is a reflection on the failure of our education system.

[W7DRM (old call was W3DRM)]

True but when there are two or more different "scientific" views to an issue, as we have in the GW issue, the real trick is discerning which of those are true and thus, should be believed.

That is the point (perhaps the only major one) on which we disagree.  In my opinion, the distinction is not between this scientific theory and that scientific theory.  The distinction is between the scientific theory about which there is no credible dissention and pseudo-science or even anti-science dressed up in scientific language in order to fool those who cannot tell the difference.  Regrettably, the ease with which the latter is perpetrated is a reflection on the failure of our education system.

Well, I'm afraid we'll probably never agree on this subject. Your statement "the scientific theory about which there is no credible dissention" is the stumbling block, in my opinion. You see, I'm not convinced "the scientific theory" has been truly scientifically developed. That comment is based on reports that many of the data points collected over the years were "cherry-picked" so the theories followed a desired outcome. That came directly from internal emails within the scientific community that were leaked to the media. You apparently don't believe the opposing views that I and others have posted or referred to, and thus, in your mind, they don't fit as "credible dissention". This is a stalemate condition and why I say we'll most likely not come to a resolution of these differences of opinions - regardless of what educational system we've come from. The education system is a whole other issue that needn't be discussed in this thread.

I respect your point of view but just can't support your conclusions at this time. Hopefully we can both still be civil towards one another...

[Weather Display]

I see Nasa has released photos of a crack in another antartic ice sheet that is about to release an iceberg the size of new york state
and which once that happens (might just miss the boat this season)
then that will mean the glacier behind it will most likely increase in speed (because less holding it back)
and so that will increase the rate of land based ice flowing into the ocean
(which is what will increase the sea level)

[KeithBC]

Well, I'm afraid we'll probably never agree on this subject.

Agreed

I'm not convinced "the scientific theory" has been truly scientifically developed.

Had you omitted the word "scientifically" from that statement and just advanced it as your own opinion, then I could have accepted it as such.  Including that word makes it problematic.

I respect your point of view but just can't support your conclusions at this time. Hopefully we can both still be civil towards one another...

I hope it will be possible to be civil.  While I can't respect the viewpoint that you hold, I respect your right to hold it.

[xykotik]

That's it?  That's the answer?  Deep-pockets = cry-baby?

Well, how about this "enlightened rebuttal":

Why do we (the U.S.A.) always have to be the ones who suffer

.
Sure, the rest of the world struggles to get by, people starve, people struggle just to put a roof over their heads.  But in the poor old US of A people are asked to drive fuel-efficient cars.  Oh, the agony!  Oh, the suffering!  Oh the humanity!

It has nothing to do with your allegedly deep pockets.  It has to bo with being whiny cry-babies.

Let's get this much clear.  My participation in this thread hasn't been to support one side or the other in the GW debate, it was to show how people have too much reliance on whichever "expert" happens to share their point of view, and how one must learn to think for themselves and explore the other side of the argument if it is important enough to debate and polarizing enough to have such committed zealots on either side.

It has now degraded to the next level, when a zealot or prosthelite (right or wrong) is either losing the argument or runs out of ideas, they start calling names or trying to marginalize their opponent.  They end the argument themselves and perhaps deprive others of some good ideas.  I certainly tend to ignore people who personalize the attack or result to meaningless insults, so I won't get to hear about the alternative energy sources you use on Vancouver, or how many trees you planted.  (That IS what you said we should do when someone conceded the GW argument and asked).  Thank you for the perfect segue.  I don't return insults, so it looks like we're done.

[edit]  I forgot to include the excellent link I found on BC's energy production.  I recommend it to everyone, especially the charts at the bottom.
http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bcep/default.aspx?hash=7

[Weather Display]

hummm
xykotik you say you say you dont return insults, but you say people on this thread are zealot or prosthelite ?

[xykotik]

hummm
xykotik you say you say you dont return insults, but you say people on this thread are zealot or prosthelite ?

I also said people can't think for themselves.  I suppose that is an insult too if you take it that way.  What a hypocrite that makes me.  (Damn, I just insulted myself (and hyppos))

[Weather Display]

I see a report that Kiribas, an island Atol in the pacific, is getting so badly affected by sea level rise they are going to have to look at moving
(there is a arguments that its sinking instead, and then others say that it wont disappear as the coral that makes up the island keeps on getting thrown up by wave action...that might be true, but that does not stop the inner part of the island getting more and more affected by salt water instrusion into the fresh water, i.e nothing can grow once there is too much salt water (i.e the level of the salt water has come up too high)
(area of the island flood during king tides, and that has been getting worse)
(sea levels are rising by so many cms every year...alot will be due to thermal expansion as the sea warms)
(I also note that there are now signs in the eastern pacific that el nino migth return...which increases global temperatures (as opposed to la nina that cools global temperatures (its been a long period of la nina lately)...the up swing then peak in sun spot activity  is oftened followed by an el nino)

[Dr Obbins]

ok, for the sake of dissucsion. I believe that the global climate is warming. I also believe that human activities have contributed to a certain extent. Now with that being said, what do I/we do from here?

Basically, keep as much fossil fuel as possible in the ground.  We can do that in a number of ways, such as finding alternative sources of energy, and reducing our consumption.  Reduce the rate of deforestation, and replace the forests that we have already consumed.

I guess the reason I asked this question was kind a rhetorical.

1. World peace - I can not achieve, but I can effect the lives of those I interact with on a daily bases. Only political cooperation on a mass scale has a change to achieve this. Look at the UN -  how's it going so far?
 
2. Local / World hunger - Once again only political cooperation on a mass scale has a change to achieve this.

3. Save the wales - At least this has been elevated to a TV show where we can all see what is going on at the front lines. Are those cute little fussy seal babies still being clubbed to death?

4. Save the planet - There are many recycling programs around the nation which have bound to made some difference. Unfortunately where I have seen laws and other regulations pop up to help make a greener world, The industry effected has moved to another location with out these regulations.

5. War on drugs. - This will never be won until the end consumer has found something else to do.

6. Global warming - This should be somewhat of an easy one to get started. Use less energy - save money. But that will work to a limited extent. I changed out incandescent bulbs to florescent in my house. I sleep better knowing that my electric bill is ~$2.00 per year lower even though the florescent bulbs cost 4X as much.

There are ~7,000,000,000 people on this planet. They all need economies to provide food, shelter, security, healthcare, at minimum. There is a limit to the number of people that the planets resources can healthily sustain. All of the issues listed above will take a focused cooperative effort control. Good luck getting 7,000 people to came to an consensus, let alone 7,000,000,000. Humans can not agree on what the common goal is so we definitely can not agree how to achieve it.

[arrowspace90]

Good luck on getting action when intelligent people, like the ones here on this forum still don't even believe it's happening.

They don't believe the experts; they don't believe NASA, they don't believe the Meteorologists, they don't believe the university studies or other consortiums of scientists.  Since they are not seeing the big picture and it's unpleasant to believe that our activities are polluting the planet, it's difficult to think of anyone that they would believe.

Here's a study out today from Columbia University.  But heck, who believes them??
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/03/01/Study-Human-activity-affecting-oceans/UPI-54151330635861/

[SoMDWx]

Experts?

The problem lies here that any university, college, or research institution depends on funding from one source or another, they tend to "lean" in the direction the lender wants them to lean.

We have seen both sides apply this type of pressure in response to the "climate change" theories.... I agree, true science, whether you agree with the results or not, has now been forever tarnished by the political and economic pressures induced in this world....Who can you believe? NASA, the Euopeans? who? With so much finger pointing and scandals abounding, who can you believe?

[Weather Display]

well, you are free to believe what you like

I believe there is enough evidence occuring that climage change is occuring (beyond that of normal cyclical climate change)

I did not originaly believe in global warming, as I believed there was enough checks and balances and relief valves....but I believe we have gone past a tipping point

[arrowspace90]

Experts?

The problem lies here that any university, college, or research institution depends on funding from one source or another, they tend to "lean" in the direction the lender wants them to lean.

NASA and the Meteorological Society published during the Bush admin.  So how does that follow?