Environmental issues

Are they real? Are they dangerous, short term and/or long term?

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or whatever you want to call global climate destabilization that's caused by humans is for real. It is not weather. It is not regional. It is not a hoax. Cooling in one small part of the world for a few years does not disprove it.

I divide the naysayers into two groups; a) those that believe there is NO GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL, and b) those that believe there is global warming but it is CYCLICAL.
I further divide the first group into; a) those that just think the science is wrong, and b) those that think some puppet master is behind it all and pulling a hoax on them.
Naysayers disagree with each other but put that aside to unite in their ignorance. :P

Here's what I ask them...
1. What are your proxies?
2. What are your drivers?
3. Are you aware that there is an entire industry that manufactures a product called "doubt"? They used to work for Big Tobacco and now they get paid to confuse you.
4. Do you claim that releasing all of the energy from fossil fuels collected from the sun over millions of years into the atmosphere over just a 150 years has NO EFFECT?
5. Why are you bringing that up after I already posted this? ====>http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Personally, I am skeptical of the term Global Warming. I believe Climate Change is happening but I don't necessarily believe in Global Warming. The term Global Warming, as used today, means 'man made' climate change. Global Warming is a THEORY .I am not convinced that a) the Earth is actually warming and/or that b) the warming is being caused by human activities.
The climate, just like every other atmospheric phenomenon is dymanic. It constantly changes. There is no solid proof that man is causing an increase in global temperatures by polluting the air. If man were not here, would the Earth still warm? We don't know. I know the arguments for the theory of Global Warming come in nice little graphs that show CO2 levels have risen and temperatures right along with them...and they look like hockey sticks. But, where are those thermometers? They are in cities surrouned by concrete and asphalt. Guess what? Of course the temperate has risen since the 1800's because of the increase in structures. But, outside the Urban Heat Island there have been studies that show the temperature has not increased but, in fact, in some cases, decreased. Also, how reliable are the thermometers that were used back in the 1800's? Are they calibrated the same and the same quality as the thermometers used today?
Another point to take into consideration is, who paid for the study? There are people that will make loads of money off the theory of global warming and the fear it causes. Did you know that in the not too distant past there was a theory of global cooling? True story. It got people all worked up until it was proved wrong. Hell, there were people who thought they could ride on the tail of the Hail Bop Comet. Wonder how that turned out for them.
Finally, I do believe that we need to recycle, look for alternative energy and stop polluting the environment. I just don't believe in the theory of Global Warming.

The book State of Fear by Michael Crichton is a good read on this subject.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-of-confusion/

You didn't read the link on #5 did you?

Opinion: it IS a hoax. There are as many scientists that believe man-made climate change is false as there are that believe it to be true. The sun and nature itself has done more to affect its own climate than humans have ever been able to do throughout the industrial age. Temperatures on earth have been warmer - in the 11th century, average global temperatures were three degrees warmer than they are in the present (citing a History Channel program discussing the Crusades).

It is only the hubris of man that can think that any activity that humans perform would adversly affect the earth. The earth has a wonderful way of cleaning itself up - for example, when oil spills occur in the ocean, the ocean will consume the oil and break it down so that it does not harm sea life (and no, I do not mean that it does not affect seashores or air-breathing animals - just that the ocean cleans itself up). A recent show on Science Channel on the Sahara desert ("How the Earth was Made") described the Sahara desert goes through a cyclical change every 5000 years that turns the desert to a lush, fertile plain with a large, fresh water lake, and then back again to a desert.

Those that advocate man-made climate change are promoting this to make money or to advance a policy of socialism and government control of business. There is nothing wrong with voluntary means to save money by making changes to reduce the consumption of energy, but to change a country's economy or sovereignty in the name of "saving the planet" is a complete and total lie.

4. Do you claim that releasing all of the energy from fossil fuels collected from the sun over millions of years into the atmosphere over just a 150 years has NO EFFECT? Originally Posted by Longermonger

Yes, it has had no effect. The Krackatoa volcano near Java that erupted in the late 1880s did more to pollute the atmosphere than all the carbon emmissions since the Industrial Revolution.

1. Even BP and Shell Oil admit that global warming is real and caused by humans. No hoax.
2. No, there are not AS MANY scientists. Not even close. There are SOME scientists that have SOME issues with SOME data...versus nearly every scientific organization on the planet. (a few guys versus and army of guys)
3 "Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment." The Medieval Warming Period WASN'T global, and WASN'T warmer.
4. How much oil can you dump into the ocean before you break the system? How about 2 oceans of oil dumped into an ocean? There is a breaking point for both the oceans and the sky, but they are different.
5. If you think that global warming is just cyclical (like the Sahara desert) then explain;
a) what is driving this natural cycle, b) how dumping huge amounts of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will have NO effect on climate.
6. The 1883 Krakatoa eruption caused the temperature to drop up to 1.3*C. While Krakatoa released lots of sulfur and ash, the amount of the greenhouse gas CO2 was much smaller than that released my humans. If Krakatoa hadn't erupted, temps might be even warmer today.

Until I get a satisfactory answer to this question I will always doubt it exsists.

!. If global warming is caused by humans, how is it that the temperature on both Mars and Saturn are changing. Last I checked no humans lived there.

Could it be that it is a natural process, the earth like everything else has a life span. What caused the Ice Age, to many cavemen burning fires. How come there are deserts that used to be lush with plant life. Seems to me the earth has been changing long before man arrived.

Also I have a problem with people like Al Gore, who has a lot of money invested in "green" companies, telling me that we need to go green. Thats sort of like the Cartel telling everyone to buy cocain because it cures cancer.

"On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting."

The "evidence" that Mars is warming is just a few pictures. Please provide what evidence you have that Mars and Saturn are warming.

The only thing that Earth and those other planets have in common as far as global warming is the Sun. And we know that the Sun isn't driving global warming. We also know that there are natural cycles on Earth. BUT...there is a strong UNNATURAL force on top of the natural cycles. That's human-caused global warming.

If Al Gore invested his money in oil companies you'd rip him for that, too. You just don't like Al Gore. That's fine. He's correct though. Inconvenient isn't it?

"If Al Gore invested his money in oil companies you'd rip him for that, too. You just don't like Al Gore. That's fine. He's correct though. Inconvenient isn't it?"

I would if he was promoting oil companies.

What drove the Ice Age, T-Rex farts.

This planet has been alot hotter before, and its been alot colder before. Just looking at the claims with a critical eye make it very doubtful we have any impact. CO2 is a minor gas in the atmosphere (0.0314%). It itself is not a 'potent' greenhouse gas anyway, compared to methane for example. We humans currently contribute around 7% of the CO2 into the atmosphere, but half of that is breathing. That's right folks. If we all decided to live in a mud hut, walk to work, and get rid of electric lighting...just completely dismantle all power plants and manufacturing facilities, the impact would be a 3.5% reduction in CO2.

It is a theory (in my opinion a bad theory). I say 'prove it'. That's not asking too much really - scientific method is based on this concept. If it can't be proved, we are just wasting our time.

I think the fixation on global warming actually distracts us from real pollution issues. Here's one small example: In New Jersey, they are no longer allowed to idle the school buses while waiting in the bus line. Instead, they must shut them off for a minute, and restart them, etc, several times as the line progresses. This is meant to limit CO2 emissions. But what is really happening - how much uncombusted sulfer and who knows what else is being released into the atmosphere during these start ups. Real pollution is being caused in the name of being 'green'. I know its a small example; but its indicative of the larger problem that we are wasting our time on AGW when real pollution issues need to be examined. Imagine if we had a conference in Copenhagen shining a spotlight on mountain top mining for example (a practice that goes on today in this country that is truly devastating to the environment).

Am I mistaken here, but I thought I learned in Biology that CO2 was necessary for the production of oxygen and the photosynthesis process. If I am wrong let me know.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5761180.shtml
email messages concerning global warming issues.....
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...stolen-e-mails
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Research time......http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...s-of-the-earth

DD, yes CO2 is what we exhale and plants breathe. Normally the Earth is pretty good at keeping the balance so we don't run out of oxygen to breathe and plants don't run out of CO2. Guess what happens if you dump CO2 into the atmosphere and mow down forests. The Earth struggles with the additional 36% increase in CO2.

Lacrew, yes the Earth has been colder before. But guess what greenhouse gas thawed the "Ice Age Earth"...CO2. You are correct that methane is much worse than CO2, but there is much more CO2 in the air. For now. Frozen permafrost bogs could thaw within your lifetime and massive undersea methane releases could also be triggered by the already accelerated warming.

You make it sound like there's just a teeny tiny little bit of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Hardly, but what matters is that the increased CO2 is too much too quickly for the Earth to handle.

If you want scientific proof just ask any scientific body in the world. You'll still find a few dissenters because you can never get 100% of the people to agree on everything. But this is pretty cut-and-dried stuff.

SS4699, the real questions are "Who?" and "Why then?" Who were the hackers? Doesn't it seem strange that a huge body of emails and data was stolen, processed, and then disseminated right before Copenhagen? Did one lone hacker read 15 years of technical information in two weeks and pick out the parts that he thought were juicy? HAHAHA I doubt it. This smells like a professional job done by a team with an agenda. While some of the emails were embarrassing, they did nothing to disprove AGW.

"...they did nothing to disprove AGW"

Longer, that's what so frustrating about this to me. If I told you the sky was neon green, the onus would be on me to prove it...not on you to disprove it.

Thats all I want - somebody to prove it. There happen to be a large number of scientists who don't 'believe' (how did we get to 'beliefs' in science anyway).

Here is a link to a page which chronicles how hot and cold scientists have been on the issue since 1855:

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

But again, even if co2 were a problem, would removing 3.5% of the co2 in the air make it all better - that's all we can do.

Geologic time is measured in thousands of years, but all of the sudden we need to empty out our pockets Right Now to fix a geologic problem? I usually don't buy the used car from that guy.