Climate Change and Global Warming

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

Take this global warming garbage for instance... bad science wrapped in bad data.

Can you elaborate on this please? Are you saying that the people against it are using bad data or vice-versa?


This thread was split from The 6 Mistakes We Make in Thinking originally started here http://atheistbus.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=157

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

Take this global warming garbage for instance... bad science wrapped in bad data.

Can you elaborate on this please? Are you saying that the people against it are using bad data or vice-versa?

I'm going to take a guess and say he means that man made global warming is not real (if I'm wrong I apologize) and I'll elaborate on why I agree with that stance.

It's hard for me to conclusively come to a decision on global warming. I do think that the Earths climate is changing, however it is very clear that this is the result of natural causes and human influence would only be on a very minor scale. Look at history closely and you'll notice the mini ice age purported in England, followed by some of the hottest months on record directly afterwards.

This is the natural ebb and flow of the Earths climate. It's hot then cold, hot then cold. It is however possible that human interactions are exacerbating the warming process, however I do not feel that there is enough conclusive evidence to show this (yes I've seen An Inconvenient Truth).

Oddly enough, I use to be a very strong "save the Earth, climate change = bad man stuff" kind of person, and it was a science teacher that convinced me otherwise. He had us watch An Inconvenient Truth and a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle and then debate which film we preferred and which was correct. There are a lot of arguments from emotion in Al Gores film and not much real evidence.

That said, I err somewhat on the side of caution. I recycle everything, use energy star efficient appliances, and use compact flouresant light bulbs. Even if global warming is natural only, I feel that recycling is an extremely important part of maintaining usable resources for the future.

However, governments are taking it too far. There is no need to impose things like carbon tax's or force green plans on companies. Yes we need to shift our dependence away from oil, but not on the basis of climate change. I'm tired of hearing about how the Obama administration wants to cripple the Alberta oilsands because it's seen as "dirty" oil. Furthermore, many institutions are using climate change as a way of controlling masses of mindless drones to support irritatingly dumb policies.

Originally Posted by Kiefer

Oddly enough, I use to be a very strong "save the Earth, climate change = bad man stuff" kind of person, and it was a science teacher that convinced me otherwise. He had us watch An Inconvenient Truth and a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle and then debate which film we preferred and which was correct. There is a lot of arguments from emotion in Al Gores film and not much real evidence.

I have to disagree, but firstly I'd like to say that these types of movies are not good sources of information because a lot of them do get the facts wrong. Al Gore did get some facts wrong in An Inconvenient Truth and I think he's admitted it, but that is the scientific way... he was corrected and I think he went around on Oprah saying so.

Something you need to understand is that it isn't just CO2 emissions that are the cause of global warming, it is the massive amount of clear cutting of forests that takes place every day... plant life and trees are a source of carbon drops, they absorb CO2. But when the plant life is killed it is 1) no longer absorbing CO2 and 2) releasing all CO2 stored as it decays and rots away.

The combination of CO2 being released into the atmosphere from car emissions, coal power plants, and natural causes + massive clear cutting of forests that are removing carbon drops and creating a greater carbon release as the plant life decays is what is causing the globe to heat up.

If you don't believe humans can have an impact, take Chloral floral carbons (CFCs) for example. Invented in the 1920's for refrigeration and aerosols, there was no natural source that put CFCs into the atmosphere so their presence in the atmosphere is almost entirely because of us. Yet in the 1980's we had to ban the use of them because they were burning a hole through the ozone on a massive scale. In just sixty years we managed to tear a giant hole in the ozone with CFC's.

Now think about this: every day tens of thousands of coal plants are firing up and burning coal, millions of cars are burning fossil fuels, millions of homes are burning natural gas, man made forest fires that destroy vegetation (carbon drops) releasing even more co2 and this has been happening for more than 60 years and on a much much larger scale than CFCs were ever used. Does it make sense to say that us humans cannot have an impact that is more than minimal?

You might say that CFC's are different because (from my understanding) when they react with UV light, the gas disassociates releasing chlorine gas that destroys ozone. Compared to CO2 which isn't reactive like CFCs are, it still doesn't change the fact that with CFCs we produced had a large global impact and from that we can deduce that if we were able to produce such a large scale change in the atmosphere with x then we might actually be a large contributor with y as well, so in other words, if we could change the atmosphere so much with CFCs, whose to say we aren't doing it with CO2 as well?


Anyways here are some resources on climate change incase you're interested in reading more, these are credible sources and not some Al Gore, Wikipedia, or some random website on google.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/index.htm

Originally Posted by Chris

Something you need to understand is that it isn't just CO2 emissions that are the cause of global warming, it is the massive amount of clear cutting of forests that takes place every day... plant life and trees are a source of carbon drops, they absorb CO2. But when the plant life is killed it is 1) no longer absorbing CO2 and 2) releasing all CO2 stored as it decays and rots away.

Well we actually have more trees now then we did fifty years ago. I agree that clear cutting is a major problem, but in the way that it is destroying natural habitat (rain forests), not in the sense of causing global warming.

Originally Posted by Chris

The combination of CO2 being released into the atmosphere from car emissions, coal power plants, and natural causes + massive clear cutting of forests that are removing carbon drops and creating a greater carbon release as the plant life decays is what is causing the globe to heat up.

The amount of CO2 released by cars, coal burning, oil, ect is negligible. The amount released by decaying vegetation topples that amount in gigantic proportions.

However, it is not necessarily a bad thing. CO2 actually makes up a very tiny portion of our atmosphere, and even with the amounts pumped into it, it remains largely unaffected by it.

Originally Posted by Chris

If you don't believe humans can have an impact, take Chloral floral carbons (CFCs) for example. Invented in the 1920's for refrigeration and aerosols, there was no natural source that put CFCs into the atmosphere so their presence in the atmosphere is almost entirely because of us. Yet in the 1980's we had to ban the use of them because they were burning a hole through the ozone on a massive scale. In just sixty years we managed to tear a giant hole in the ozone with CFC's.

I'm not saying that humans can't (or even aren't) have affects on the world. One only need look as far as oil spills to prove that, or DDT.

What I'm saying is that in this specific case, I don't feel there is conclusive evidence.

Originally Posted by Chris

Now think about this: every day tens of thousands of coal plants are firing up and burning coal, millions of cars are burning fossil fuels, millions of homes are burning natural gas, man made forest fires that destroy vegetation (carbon drops) releasing even more co2 and this has been happening for more than 60 years and on a much much larger scale than CFCs were ever used. Does it make sense to say that us humans cannot have an impact that is more than minimal?

On the surface it certainly looks bad. But I would use acid rain and smog to argue against coal plants and cars, not global warming.

Originally Posted by Chris

You might say that CFC's are different because (from my understanding) when they react with UV light, the gas disassociates releasing chlorine gas that destroys ozone. Compared to CO2 which isn't reactive like CFCs are, it still doesn't change the fact that with CFCs we produced had a large global impact and from that we can deduce that if we were able to produce such a large scale change in the atmosphere with x then we might actually be a large contributor with y as well, so in other words, if we could change the atmosphere so much with CFCs, whose to say we aren't doing it with CO2 as well?

That's taking evidence from one thing, and applying it to another.

My watch was made by a watchmaker, so couldn't you imply that the Earth was made by an Earth maker? (No stupid creationist quote mine me with that, I'm using it to show the invalidity of his argument.)

Originally Posted by Chris

Anyways here are some resources on climate change incase you're interested in reading more, these are credible sources and not some Al Gore, Wikipedia, or some random website on google.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/index.htm

I will defiantly take a look at those. May I recommend the aforementioned film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to you?

I guess I should clear my stance up though. I'm neither pro nor anti global warming. I'm very on the fence on this issue, and I need more evidence before I jump off to one side. Like I said though, I ere on the side of caution. I also use things like acid rains, smog, and the finite amount of coal/oil to argue for better funding for alternative fuels.


On a side note though, I read the sites main post for today. Why is everyone ripping on Harper about that G20 photo? It's just not that big of a deal, and the other world leaders all had a good laugh over it. Obama even reportedly said (on take two) "this ones just for you Steve". As it stands right now, Canada is in a position of international envy. We have (arguably) been the least affected by this recession of any developed country, and our banking sector was rated the best in the world.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

Take this global warming garbage for instance... bad science wrapped in bad data.

Can you elaborate on this please? Are you saying that the people against it are using bad data or vice-versa?

Global warming is real, and so is global cooling. The standard temp. used is 51.1degrees C. The temp. in 2007(I think it was) was 51.2 degrees C. However, approximately ten(might have been twenty. doing this from memory) years ago, it was up to 51.5. The following year it was down to 50.?. Big problem, a less than one degree raise in temp . So it is real, but not a threat(seeing as how it has been worse). It is not nearly as bad as the science community and the gov. makes it appear.

Also, while I am at it, I will speak a little about the green house effect. Scientist on TV these days seem to make this look bad. This is simply not the case. If our planet did not have the green house effect we would freeze to death. Our atmosphere would let out all of the heat that keeps us alive. What is really sad is that the other day I saw an add on how to stop green house gasses. That is amazing, wanting to stop the gases that keep us warm. That would be a brilliant thing for science to do, kill us all in one swipe.

As to the whole in ozone layer, it is over Antarctica. It happens every year. Chemicals that destroy ozone are trapped in ice partials and are blown up into the atmosphere. Some of them make it, some of them don't. The thing is that this reduces the ozone count by nearly 50%. So if this happens every year, and has been happening for who knows how long, and it hasn't been a problem, why do we need to do something about it. It has been fine for as long as it has been happening so why do we need to interfere with something that is fine? As the old saying goes "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Sorry for going off topic.

CS, why don't you try doing a little research? Try googling CFC's and Rowland & Molina. Pay particular attention to the bullshit propaganda campaigns run by the well-financed vested-interests defending CFC's.

This research was done a year ago. It was an nearly an entire chapter in our science text books. I wrote that from memory.

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

As to the whole in ozone layer, it is over Antarctica. It happens every year. Chemicals that destroy ozone are trapped in ice partials and are blown up into the atmosphere. Some of them make it, some of them don't. The thing is that this reduces the ozone count by nearly 50%. So if this happens every year, and has been happening for who knows how long, and it hasn't been a problem, why do we need to do something about it. It has been fine for as long as it has been happening so why do we need to interfere with something that is fine? As the old saying goes "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Sorry for going off topic.

From the Physics and Astronomy department at University of Georgia:



It is not a yearly thing, I feel bad that you are subjected to such nonsense. Btw Christian Soldier, do you live in Canada? I've never seen one of those greenhouse gas commercials.

What you need to understand is that a balanced level of greehouses gases is fine, we do need it to survive, but the problem is that the level continues to rise as we continue to spew out CO2 and clear cut large carbon drops (such as the amazon forest). I think every few hours there is the equivalent of 20+ football fields cleared from the amazon.

Originally Posted by Chris

What you need to understand is that a balanced level of greehouses gases is fine, we do need it to survive, but the problem is that the level continues to rise as we continue to spew out CO2 and clear cut large carbon drops (such as the amazon forest). I think every few hours there is the equivalent of 20+ football fields cleared from the amazon.

I don't usually do this but here is some light reading if you are interested in "Global Warming".
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Global Warming is now called "Climate Change" because the globe stopped warming a number of years ago even thought CO2 (also known as human breath) has continued to climb. It is an agenda of those that say "the ends justify the means".
Ultimately "Global Climate Warming Change" will destroy the Enviromental Movement when it is proven to be false and they once again are called Chicken Little. As I support the reduction of REAL pollution this will break my heart but it is now an inevitability.

By the way I don't mind having an Alias but my real name is Scott.

Scott

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

Originally Posted by Chris

What you need to understand is that a balanced level of greehouses gases is fine, we do need it to survive, but the problem is that the level continues to rise as we continue to spew out CO2 and clear cut large carbon drops (such as the amazon forest). I think every few hours there is the equivalent of 20+ football fields cleared from the amazon.

I don't usually do this but here is some light reading if you are interested in "Global Warming".
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Global Warming is now called "Climate Change" because the globe stopped warming a number of years ago even thought CO2 (also known as human breath) has continued to climb. It is an agenda of those that say "the ends justify the means".
Ultimately "Global Climate Warming Change" will destroy the Enviromental Movement when it is proven to be false and they once again are called Chicken Little. As I support the reduction of REAL pollution this will break my heart but it is now an inevitability.

By the way I don't mind having an Alias but my real name is Scott.

Scott

No offense Scott, but that website is pretty weak. They say things like "The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that." and then give no reference to anything backing that claim. That's not very convincing at all.

Also, it's so funny that you should conveniently link to a website that is funded by the oil companies. Their so called board of advisers are paid/have worked with/collaborate with the oil companies such as Exxon Mobile.

"ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming quotes and deeds.
" (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns ... on-secrets)

Exxon Secrets FAQ here - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai...on-secrets/faq

Who is on their list for funding or working for related agencies that have been funded by Exxon?
Tim Patterson, PhD
Tim Ball, PhD
Madhav Khandekar
Chris DeFreitas
Dr. Sallie Baliunas

Who is on "Friends of Science" Advisory board?
Tim Patterson, PhD
Tim Ball, PhD
Madhav Khandekar
Chris DeFreitas
Dr. Sallie Baliunas


Here is some light reading for you, something not funded by oil companies such as Exxon. This source is a lot more reputable and trust worthy: http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Also some more reading if interested:
Friends of Science Caught in the Gauntlet (mentions FOS near bankrupt)
University of Calgary Audit Exposes Friends of Science Wrongdoing
Article that was published August 12, 2006 in the Globe and Mail that reveals the true motivations by Pseudo-"Friends of Science": http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html