Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Intro

I would respectfully disagree with that, Ed. Just because it is a political issue does not invalidate the science. I see your point, and politics does muddy things, but if you look, you can see the science. --PalMD-yada yada 19:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

"Many of the global warming doom sayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse." I dunno, in my experience most of the folks talking about global warming catastrophes are screaming at people to avoid an Apocalypse. --Kels 19:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

And, unfortunately, many folks who believe in the Apocalypse think global warming is irrelevant. --PalMD-yada yada 19:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Even scarier are the Apocalyptic nuts who think that if they can make Earth unlivable enough, Jesus will be FORCED to return and Save them. Pleasant thought, eh? --Gulik 15:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Have you read Skinny Legs and All, Gulik? Given the other overlaps in our tastes, you might enjoy it. --jtltalk 16:02, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

And many skeptics happen to be American with ties to the oil and automobile industries... MiddleMan

To avoid any misunderstandings:

  • Fact: the average temperature on Earth is rising.
  • Fact: the average temperature of the polar regions is rising faster than that of the rest of the world.
  • Fact: melting icecaps are bad for the world.
  • Fact: solar activity influences global temperatures.
  • Fact: human activity influences global activity.
  • Fact: Per capita, Americans consume 70% more oil than the British.
  • Fact: the human factor of global warming is significant (40% or higher).
  • Only thing that's not a fact: the exact percentage of global warming that can be attributed to human activity.

Conclusion: whether we're responsible for 48% or 63% doesn't really matter here, what matters is that our influence is significant, meaning we can also significantly reduce global warming!

MiddleMan

I've replaced the previous article with something which addresses the issues a bit more.--Bob_M (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Also, increasing CO2 has significantly changed ocean acid-base chemistry. Im way to lazy right now to dig up the great recent article in the New Yorker. User:PalMD


You might find this interesting: Your Beginners Guide to Denying Global Warming. Paladiea's been doing some good work, covering climate change politics in Canada, so the rest of her blog's interesting too. --Kels 16:10, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, when the spirit moves me I'm going to write part two on the "scientific" objections to global warming. But that doesn't' mean I'll complain if somebody else does it first.--Bob_M (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Say, the wingnuts are crowing about the Director of NASA denying Global Warming is an immediate issue. I assume they're telling only a fraction of the story, so does anyone here have more info? --Kels 16:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Not familiar with the story, but the Bush administration has kept a pretty tight lid on what it lets those boys say anyway hasn't it?--Bob_M (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Interview on NPR today with the NASA administrator who basically toed the Bush line on climate change. I actually felt bad for him...briefly.--PalMD-yada yada 17:35, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

That's so... undemocratic. MiddleMan

New Scientist in the UK has run a number of articles on political interference in NASA reports. I suppose the same reports surface in the US.--Bob_M (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Today I read Bush proposed an alternative (alternative to Kyoto) treaty to limit global warming (implying he believes it is real), when is he going to make his mind up? MiddleMan

Yes, I read something about that as well. If he continues down that route a lot a Republicans are going to have to engage in double think.--Bob_M (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Not to worry, they'll follow the same road as our Conservative party. Set a target date of 2050, don't do anything else, then blame all the non-Conservative governments between now and then for their failure. --Kels 14:21, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I thought the current Canadian government was getting some grief for pulling back on Global Warming commitments - or did I get that wrong?--Bob_M (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Inserted text

This text replaced the main article for a few minutes:

The global warming debate has left the realm of science a long time ago. It has become totally politicized. Any scientific criticism is not met with a scientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare tactics. Some skeptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else. Many of the global warming doom sayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse. A good New Zealand example was the acceptance speech of Peter Barrett, when he received the (well-earned) Marsden Medal. He predicted the extinction of the human race by the end of this century due to AGW.

[1]

What's anyone think about including it? To be clear it wasn't my addition, but an IP user added it.-αmεσ (!) 01:16, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

That is more-or-less the original text of the article by Ed Poor which was overwritten by the present one. There might be some issues worth raising, but the first part simply turns reality on it's head. I'd say leave it out.--Bob_M (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Agreed. It's just the usual "La-la-I-can't-hear-you-nothing-wrong-here!" non-argument. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:58, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] "Arguments against humans as the cause of global warming"

How does a finding that ice sheets might not respond to warming as dramatically as previously thought qualify as an argument against "man made global warming," exactly? Dyskolos 22:57, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

And it looks the author was being selectively quoted by the right-wing site cited. Dyskolos 23:27, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] While it's true...

After years of hearing about global warming and doing what little study I've done on the whole issue I've reached some tentative conclusions:

  • Global warming is occurring.
  • Human activity probably is helping it along.
  • Even if we were able to stop GHG (CO2 and CH4 emissions totally today GW would likely continue.
  • GW is more dependent on solar cycles and solar energy output than GHG combinations.
  • Average ocean temperatures are a better indicator of GW than average terrestrial (air) temps.
  • Humanity will survive.
"We can't stop the house burning, so let's just roast marshmallows", eh? The longer we can delay catastrophic warming, the longer we have to work on a real solution. --Gulik 15:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
We might survive, but the planet will be in bad shape. I read somewhere that 2040 is the years the Evil Librul Science Conspiracy is projecting the oceans will be so acidic that krill won't be able to form their shells. At that point, we can kiss the entire ocean ecosystem goodbye, so enjoy your tuna and cod NOW. --Gulik 15:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
That was actually a terrific article. It's easy to forget chemistry sometimes...in the human body, HCO3- is the main buffer, with the lungs controlling CO2 output and retention. The oceans perform a similar task on Earth, and as the pH of oceans changes with increased atm CO2, microorgs that make carbonate shells are having a helluva time.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 16:05, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Thankfully humans are fully self-sufficient and don't need any other living things to survive in luxury and comfort. --jtltalk 16:09, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

"GW is more dependent on solar cycles and solar energy output than GHG combinations." What lead you to conclude this? Dyskolos 21:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] lol

from Conservapedia:

"Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 11° F and then returned to normal."

wtf? Dyskolos 21:47, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

The first thing to know is that, what the rest of the world calls "scientists", creationists call "evolutionists" or, if they're being very accomodating, "evolutionary scientists". It doesn't matter if they're studying geology or geography or astrophysics or anything else, if they disagree with anything the speaking creationist believes (for instance, that the world is 6000 years old), they're evolutionists. --jtltalk 22:15, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow-- I haven't been over to the CP global warming site in ages. Now it doesn't even mention CO2 at all. It at least mentioned it once before... ŠтΈṜȳŁЁand...? 14:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

[edit] NASA/Al Gore spinmasters

More sources coming. 16:01, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs an understanding of statistical significance. Look the change in the data went from non-significant but with 1998 being hotter to non-significant with 1934 being hotter. In reality there was NO change (0.02 percent). And 1934 was the middle of the friggin' dust bowl. Not really "comforting" news. Not to mention that when dealing with averages across years the 90s and 2000s are still the hottest "decade" in US history. And also US is not the world. The Global Temperature is unchanged. Basically an anomaly in the US data having to do with a specific weather event (the dust bowl) leads to 1998 being non-significantly a little less than the "hottest" year. ohhh conspiracy all around. tmtoulouse irritate 17:09, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

And if the Dust Bowl was that bad last time, what's it going to be like when it gets even hotter? I for one, am not looking forward to paying $10 for a loaf of bread... --Gulik 23:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Merge

We should be looking out how to handle content here and at List of claims by global warming denialists. tmtoulouse irritate 00:11, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay. tmtoulouse irritate 16:10, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

[edit] "climate change" vs. "global warming"

I'm not quite sure how to introduce my favourite bit of climate change denial - I'll try something like "Using anecdotal evidence - like "Wow, it's really fucking cold today!" to argue that "global warming" is not an issue." Y'all can decide if it fits... There was a story on Fox News just today on low temperatures and the corn harvest or some such thing. The root of the problem - and the title of this very article is part of the problem - is that we should be talking about "climate change," not "global warming." PFoster 23:35, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

The semantics of "climate change" versus "global warming" is complicated I would argue. While the specific local consequences of global warming might be different and thus labels "climate change" the overall cause of much of it is still the increase in global temperature. tmtoulouse irritate 23:48, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I think "climate change" alone is too vague in some ways, since, as Tmt points out, the rise in average global temperature is the concern - and how much of it is anthropogenic. For instance, if we noticed that we were gradually entering another ice age (we should be, IIRC), that would also be "climate change", and might worry us in terms of how to prepare for it, if possible. Probably the entire phrase describing the issue of concern would formally read "climate change due to anthropogenic global warming". The easiest and clearest shorthand for that is "global warming".

I agree - but the pervasiveness of the common shorthand form "global warming" makes it easy for deniers to point to localised events and anecdotal evidence, like a cold snap or an unusually snowy winter - like last year in NY State, as evidence that there's no "global warming" problem, when it is in fact evidence of a climate change problem - climate change caused by, yes, no doubt, global warming. PFoster 12:05, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we could condense the smart stuff in this section into the article - in an intro defining the term, and in that section on anecdotal bluster? I agree absolutely that GW can cause not only heavier precipitation (global flood, anyone?!), but even colder winters - locally, of course. humanbe in 12:08, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Tangentially, a lot of this could use some copyediting. I didn't bother at first because it looked like it was a quick slapdash creation due to frustration with our resident "skeptic", but now it's turning into a "real" article I might have to try. humanbe in 12:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Some Guy With a Website had an amusing take on that 'argument'. --Gulik 23:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Sun's influence on climate

And a paper by the Royal Society [2]. For those with a subscription to Nature, [3] and several news articles on the article [4] [5] [6] [7] . The short of it is:

  • The light output of the sun did not have correlation to the climate in the past solar cycle
  • The number of sunspots did not have a correlation to the climate in the past cycle
  • The magnetic field of the sun did not have a correlation to the climate in the past cycle
  • The cosmic rays (from a weaker magnetic field, involved in cloud formation) did not...

If any of these were to have a significant effect on the climate, one should have seen a reduction in the tempature around 1985. Even with lag time, temperature continued to raise.

--Shagie 01:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Denial step 6

Hmm...not sure how to word this properly, but I'm guessing that the 6th step wouldn't be admitting culpability, but instead blaming the failure to do something on one's political opponents. We've actually got a Conservative Prime Minister up here who's simultaneously denying it's a problem, trumpeting how much he's doing to solve the problem, and blaming the previous government for not solving the problem that they've just denied exists. --Kels 14:31, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I've changed it to "6. (There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something.")" But it still could be sharpened up.--Bob's your uncle 14:55, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit!

Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit! BBC report Susantalk to me 00:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

The complainant is a member of the New Party an organisation which I haven't previously heard. Glancing at it's web page it appears to be a leetle bit right of centre (!). Susantalk to me 00:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Conspiracy theory

Global warming is just a bogus Conspiracy theory.— Unsigned, by: 12.75.67.38 / talk / contribs


Ah. It's not a proper conspiracy theory then?--Bobbing for apples 11:50, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

what im saying is that even if global warming is 3.75% possible man made global warming is just silly. and whats that number ou put next to the commnet i just posted?— Unsigned, by: 12.75.67.38 / talk / contribs

[edit] Evangelicals and Global Warming

A program on PBS (NOW with David Brancaccio) - http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/343/ -- by no means, are all of them sticking their head in the sand. Its a good program to watch and brings up some powerful arguments (stewardship of the Earth, and the population pressure of a warmer earth (leading to more wars, and stronger cases for abortion and euthanasia). --Shagie 19:40, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Persuading the more military minded

An Abrupt Climage Change Scenario and its Impilcation for United States National Security (commissioned by the military) and National Security and the threat of Climage Change by the CNA Corporation (non profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses). --Shagie 19:57, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] oh come ON!

We are not all going to die because of some stupid gas! Al gore is just taking advandge of you becauase he is a greedy lier who only wants money! Anthropogenic global warming is the dumbest bullshit conspiracy theroy ever invented. 98.17.14.134 13:53, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

before I (or anyone) engages you on this could you tell us where you are on the "Hierarchy of Global Warming Denier Rationalizations" mentioned in the article?--Bobbing for apples 13:56, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Interesting: anthropothingy spelled correctly but liar wrongly. Mind on higher things obviously. Sorry bud, methane & CO2 definitely cause GW. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 14:06, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

You know, this is funny. Now i get it! This is not a serious article at all, but rather just humor. After all, that would be the only explanation for this BS, its so stupid, it cant be serious! 98.17.14.134 14:13, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Could you be just a little bit more explicit? I really would like to know where you are on the "Hierarchy of Global Warming Denier Rationalizations" though. That's so that I know exactly where your part company with... errr ... the article.--Bobbing for apples 14:16, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Well you don't have to read it. You can always just bugger off to GW denier's heaven and wait for the flood. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 14:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

<sigh> The lie that all skeptics are neoconservative strikes again. 98.17.14.134 14:24, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
(?) err... Pardon. Where was that indicated? SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 14:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Oh I see! The flood referred to is that caused by GW, hope you live away from the coast. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 14:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Your just making fun of me. 98.17.14.134 14:43, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I think you're the one making a joke of you. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 14:51, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I'm not making fun of you. I'm just trying to get you to tell us explicitly where you stand. Simply saying that it's a pseudoscience without any evidence doesn't really get you very far I'm afraid.--Bobbing for apples 14:54, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Negative proof alert! It appears that if i dont prove that its false its true. And this artical is a bunch of stupid trash anyway. 98.17.14.134 15:16, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
(repeat) Well you don't have to read it. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 15:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
To late. I already did and now i'm angry about it. Its just.... SILLY! HA HA, this is almost as funny as conservapedia! 98.17.14.134 15:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Well, if you're not prepared to raise the level of your debate beyond simply repeating yourself then I'm afraid that I can't debate you. Goodbye.--Bobbing for apples 15:38, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

This was a debate?— Unsigned, by: 98.17.14.134 / talk / contribs

It seems not.--Bobbing for apples 15:50, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Lets turn it into one. Where is your proof? 98.17.14.134 15:51, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Hmm. It seem that no one is rising up to challenge me. Then I WIN!! Yes! 98.17.14.134 16:02, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I do have a few other things to do with my time.  :-) But step by step. Do you agree that (for whatever reason) the world is warming?— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs

If it is then it is not caused by the Greenhouse effect, and not by humans. 98.17.14.134 16:06, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Do you or do you not agree that it is warming?--Bobbing for apples 16:09, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I see what your doing! How clever. 98.17.14.134 16:13, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
That's quite astute for someone from Little Rock. Genghis Khant 16:23, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Instead of just saying this article is a bullshit conspiracy theory read this, if you can debunk that for us we might start to listen :) - Icewedge 16:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

You do realize that simply dismissing every effort to ascertain your position on the matter does not constitute actual debate? I can understand if you're hoping to "hold all the cards" so you never have to defend a position and can simply go on criticising the environmentalist one, but if so, don't expect to be taken seriously. This response - If it is then it is not caused by the Greenhouse effect, and not by humans. - implies that you believe that Global Warming is not a problem nomatter what the situation, the sort of unconditional belief that smells of political ideology rather than rational analysis of the evidence. Now it may well not be! You may indeed have some great reasons why Global Warming is "the dumbest bullshit conspiracy theroy ever invented", reasons which we could examine and understand why you came to this decision. But until such reasons are presented, and you only continue to criticise without basis, I see little validity in anything you have to say. Uchiha 16:42, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Also, I realize that that could have sounded a little unnecessarily malicious, so I'll clarify my primary point: if you've got some substantial point to make, than go ahead! We're not going to censor it or anything. You won't get banned. If you've got such good reasons that you know for sure Global Warming is a big'ol scam, well, why not share them with everybody? Uchiha 16:47, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. Now, in youer first post you spoke of evidence. What evidence? 98.17.14.134 16:48, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

First let's try to find out how far we agree. Do you accept the world is warming?--Bobbing for apples 16:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

As far as "our" evidence, there appear to be ten footnotes on the article. Are any in dispute? Still waiting, of course, for any substantive statement from you - your position, what evidence you think supports it, etc. Goatspeed! humanUser talk:Human 17:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
OK, here you go human:

There are a lot of people here that don't care that people are starving in Africa. They don't care that the majority of the world does not have good hospital care, that many people live with unclean water that is full of bacteria and that they don't have the ability to drink clean water which in turn causes diseases.

They don't care about the fact that many people in the world don't have sewage systems that can keep their water supply clean and that most of the world has no way of taking care of mega tons of garbage disposal and don't have sanitation systems. What these people want to do is divert any possible money that could go to helping people who are in real need and spend it all on global warming.

They want trillions of dollars to go to a problem that may not be a problem and in this way slap on the face all the people who could really use this money to make a better life. These global warming people are the most disgusting people on the planet and its surprising more people aren't totally repulsed by the sheer height of their condescending and paternal attitude to all the real problems facing the planet and the real suffering of so many people.

That satement was made here
98.17.14.134 18:07, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
PS: I have nothing against you guys. Please do not take this as an insult. And feel free to debunk this, thats what debates are for. And i am not the person who asked the question that i link to, just FYI.

Would you please enlighten me as to how not to take "the most disgusting people on the planet" as an insult? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:43, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Ah a reply with meat at last.
What makes you think that any cash not put into GW would go towards saving life in the third world? Were you to deprecate the amount spent on arms & using arms, I would be more likely to sympathise. There is a chance that GW, by allowing the malaria life cycle to spread away from the tropics, will encourage medical research into that disease.Anyhow - still no counter argument. (I discount the cite above - 'twas a bit(!) of a loaded question) Much more to say, but I'll leave it to those better qualified. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 18:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Have you considered the impacts of global warming (and the drought that Africa has been dealing with for the past decades) on the supply of clean water available in Africa? I do care about those starving in Africa, however to simply try to feed them and make them dependent on foreign nations to supply them does not help anyone. How do you increase the carrying capacity of the land and help people without forcing them to become westernized (and all of the disgust/disappointment that they have - to survive, they have to give up the way of life they've known for as far back as their tradition goes?). The answer is simple - become responsible custodians of the planet and accept stewardship of it rather than shortsighted exploitation.
Spending $1B on global warming is not something that Africa will see the results of today. But maybe, the children of the people alive today won't be fighting wars over water and instead able to live with the land as their grandparents did. --Shagie 18:57, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Global warming is not a myth, however, we are not the cause of it, at all. Science has actually proven that we are not the cause of global warming. 10,000 years ago the Ice Caps started melting at the rate at which it is now melting, al the way from Kansas. Mars Ice caps are also melting at a fast rate. And the water on Mars found in the rocks is proof that it once was covered in water, at least enough for surface water to form. People had to move from Machu Picchu because it was getting too warm. Entire civilizations started killing themselves because they didn't know why it was getting so warm. 98.17.14.134 19:01, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, there have been climate shifts in the past. Machu Picchu had the signature of a few decades of El Nino followed by a few decades of La Nina (or might be the other way around - rain first then drought). Still, there is an impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the temperature. And even more of an impact with methane. There is no question if this is the case (feel free to cite any studies that say otherwise). The exact rate of impact from these gasses is not known. Carbon dioxide is nonetheless 35% higher than pre-industrial revolution levels. Methane is 148% higher than pre-industrial revolution. Those are not small changes in terms of atmospheric composition and they do have an effect. What added these gasses? You can argue that if you wish as to if it is human or cow farts that did it (though note that the population increase from the industrial revolution required additional food and animal herds are a major source of that). Some of it was from the California fires (8 million tons of carbon dioxide from this past one). The question is, can we reduce the gasses back to historic levels - and hopefully level out climate change before the carrying capacity of the land drops significantly. --Shagie 19:14, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
All this gas is not going to heat up the planet, it is just going to make the air smell bad. And thats if the level of methane goes up 1000%. People are going to look back on this time period and say "Boy, did they overreact or WHAT" 98.17.14.134 19:23, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Actually, methane and carbon dioxide have no smell. So... guess you lost that one. Lurker 21:33, 5 November 2007 (EST)
IP guy: Nobody is going to take you seriously if you continue making that kind of assertion with no evidence. Please provide something to back up your statement. Currently, all you are doing is calling people liars with no proof. Masterbratac 19:31, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Some reading material for you on methane.[8] Would you rather have people looking back and commenting on overreaction or underreaction? Consider the consequences. Scroll up there and read the two bits written by and for the military on climate change. --Shagie 19:33, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Average Earth surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1850. OMG! Thats soooo horrible! 1 stinky little degree. You guys are acting like it has risen up 10 degrees! And thats in 150 years! 12.75.67.13 20:46, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Hopefully, this will make it more clear why people are alarmed. The medieval warm period, which those who oppose global warming frequently tout as why everything's cyclical and we're totally okay cos those guys did all right, was considerably colder than us and got there considerably slower. They still had reported problems due to the increased heat, and they had a couple hundred years to adjust. We've done more in the last 50 than they did in 300, and that's pretty concerning. Slink 20:58, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Not to spam, but I also want to note that a lot of the natural defenses that keep the climate constant are fairly sensitive to heat. There comes a point where if it gets any hotter, we start to melt too much ice or destroy the ocean's ability to convert CO2 into oxygen, and the heating happens at an increased rate. Slink 21:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Natural warming periods do vary, maybe this one is just a steeper climb. Our climate is just like a rollar coaster, it goes up and down and up and down and sometimes the hill may be higher and steeper, like in this case. 12.75.67.13 21:08, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Everything we know about the climate says that this is not the case. All previous records of climate change, and we have enough to go on for the last few hundred years, and a pretty decent record up to about 1000AD, show gradual shifts over the course of a few hundred years. For the temperature to go from below recorded averages to the highest ever recorded in less than 50 years is not something that the climate just "does", at least in our understanding of it. Couple that with the fact that we know (a) That we've been dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that (b) Are what keeps our Earth from being a cold, dead wasteland, it sort of follows that the increased gas levels are causing the spike in temperature. Considering that we're talking about something that could destroy our civilization and has a distinct (though not foreseeable) point of no return, beyond which it is questionable if we can repair our damage, I'm not sure why anyone would advocate "waiting to see what happens". We're not talking about sacrificing your firstborn here, we're talking about carbon emissions controls. What's the big deal? Slink 21:18, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Only a few hundred years? This warming could be a product of a rare event that only happens every MILLON years, or BILLON for all we know. 12.75.67.13 21:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)
May I ask you this? What is the harm in working to fix/prevent this problem, hypothetical or not. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:43, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Freedom, freedom, did I already say freedom? It sounds to me like an attempt to get the people afraid because "global warming has the power to kill everyone" (not) 12.75.67.13 21:50, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Freedom to kill the planet, not to mention the population of said planet, is that it? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:52, 5 November 2007 (EST)
No. Good freedom will be lost. 12.75.67.13 21:59, 5 November 2007 (EST)
"Profits Before People or Planet", eh? --Gulik 23:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)
No......... 12.75.66.234

<- The point here is that Global Warming arguments are based on knowledge. We know the earth is warming. We know why it's probably happening. We know things are going to get worse. We know even as we speak, glaciers are retreating, exposes patches of ground that are now retaining heat instead of reflecting it. Anti-global warming arguments are based on a lack of knowledge. "Who can say why it's really happening?" "Maybe the earth just does that." "Maybe Carbon Monoxide doesn't have the effect in the real world that it does in experiments." The reality is that we have evidence that man is causing global warming. There is no evidence that he is not. The idea that one should be ignored because the other may exist somewhere, maybe, is ridiculous. Also, what freedoms will be lost? What environmental measures in the past have restricted your freedoms that you think that future environmental measures will? Slink 22:03, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry, Slink. 12.75.67.13's need to drive an SUV is just more important than trying to make sure our grandchildren have a livable planet. --Gulik 23:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)
NO!!! I am not coming up with dumb excuses so i can drive a stupid SUV. Man made global warming is really fake! 12.75.66.whatever 23:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Oh, well. If it's YOU saying it, it must be true! Not like all those members of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy...I mean, what do THEY know, just having spent a decent chunk of their lifetimes studying the situation? They just hate capitalism, freedom, and Jesus. --Gulik 23:44, 5 November 2007 (EST)
They have been fed lies as well, and its not there fault. I know. I used to be a member of the "Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy." But that was before i discoverd the truth {Man-made Global warming is bullshit). And yet, you are assuming that i am a neocon. Of course, everyone who dare question Global Warming must be a conservative. (sarcasm) 12.75.66.234 00:20, 6 November 2007 (EST)
I know it's tough, but could you please just read the things people here actually wrote, not the things the voices in your head are saying they wrote? And while you're at it, how about explaining what it was that made you a True Disbeliever in the Cult of Global Warming? You just keep saying it's bad and false and wrong, apparently under the delusion that sheer repetition will grant credibility to your spouting. --Gulik 01:34, 6 November 2007 (EST)

OK, so you're a scientist. Why not tell us a little bit about yourself, your qualifications and how you discovered the evidence that global warming isn't man made. You'd do a lot better actually telling us why you think that, and backing it with real evidence rather than just continually asserting that man-made global warming isn't happening. --Jeeves 04:41, 9 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Gloobal warmingg is badd

ARe you killingg itta? StupidIdiot 18:03, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Imma chargin my lazer, comrade! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:41, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

[edit] 'Sup, Vandals?

You seem to be of the opinion that global warming is not due to anthropomorphic causes! Howsabout rather than removing crap from the article, you ADD counterarguments, or discuss here WHY you believe the contents of the article to be untrue. In reference to your previous edit, you stated that some planets were warmer and some planets were colder, simultaneously, due to the changing heat of the sun. That doesn't make any sense, because the sun is the same heat for all 9 planets. Moreover, the sun's heat has been examined by real live scientists and has been determined to account for ~30% of the current warming at best. Slink 19:30, 5 November 2007 (EST)

There could be other causes, such as volcanos. And what makes you think that i am a vandal? 12.75.67.13 19:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Which volcanoes? When did they erupt? How much particulate matter did they expel?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:41, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Not logging in before editing, removing blocks of content, etc. There CAN be other causes. That doesn't mean there ARE other causes. Especially since no ACTUAL proof for other causes has been brought forward whereas a lot of proof for anthropomorphic causes has. And by a lot, I mean a ton. And by a ton I mean, there's a bunch of crap in the air that we know for a fact keeps heat trapped within the atmosphere. The "there COULD be another option" argument isn't especially convincing, especially since if it's wrong and the giant mountain of evidence we have to the contrary is right, action needs to be taken, and if it's wrong and action is taken, nothing bad happens to anyone. It's kinda like Pascal's Wager. Slink 19:44, 5 November 2007 (EST)
How is not logging in before editing vandalism? 12.75.67.13 19:56, 5 November 2007 (EST)

<-Not logging in and also removing blocks of content. Actually, I'll just go out and say forget the not logging in- you removed a bunch of (true, verifiable) content without talking to anyone. Vandalville: Population You. Of course, the more interesting bit here is how your edit summary referred to global warming as a lie, and your post content ignored all the arguments made here to the contrary, made no real argument of your own, and even ignored every descriptor of "vandal" except for the one you could find fault with. What the hell, dude? Slink 20:00, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Re: the wager, my "global warming wager" even goes further - even if we are "wrong", virtually every thing we could do to reduce greenhouse gases would make life better in the not-too-long term. You know, kind of a Manhattan Project for energy efficiency and sources. Call me a dreamer... humanUser talk:Human 19:52, 5 November 2007 (EST)
I'll do you one better: you're a Communist! Slink 19:54, 5 November 2007 (EST)
No I'm not, I'm a democratic socialist fan of economic freedom. humanUser talk:Human 21:05, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I think you'll find that erupting vocanoes actually cause global cooling, like the nuclear winter scenario. Of course they could cause global warming by not erupting enough! However, I don't believe there has been any marked change in volcanic activity during the last century. It's funny how anthropgogenic global warming deniers can come up with hypotheses of what is really causing the temperature to rise when thousands of the world's greatest scientists are otherwise engaging in a <irony>liberal conspiracy</irony> to show otherwise. Very, very few of these scientists have any vested interest in promoting this alleged hoax whereas the majority of the deniers have a vested interest (sustaining business profits, avoiding personal taxation or restrictions on doing what they jolly well like without considering the consequences) in trying to prove it false. It's not a religious thing either, as many non-US religious leaders have stated that mankind has a duty of care to the planet. Genghis Khant 07:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

In particular, this is wp:global dimming. See also the summer of love 1816. --Shagie 16:26, 6 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy

Ok, 12.75.67.13 , IF that's your REAL name, let me play a little game, assuming for one moment that your are absolutely correct. That Global Warming is, in fact, totally natural and harmless, and nothing humans have done has any affect on it. Which means that almost every climatologist on the planet who isn't collecting a paycheck from Exxon is either utterly, totally wrong, or lying through their teeth, (Pretty much what Creationists believe about all scientists, in fact.)

What's in it for them? It's not like there's some big, massively rich Anti-Oil-Industry writing them fat checks, and most scientists have all the political clout of a bag of smoke, so what are they getting out of this monstrous hoax? --Gulik 22:37, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Actually I'm fairly certain his real name is 98.17.14.134.
95% certain, in fact. Uchiha 23:19, 5 November 2007 (EST)
I've been wondering that too Gulik. It's pretty easy to see why Exxon would want to manipulate public data to their own ends, but why would scientists? And why would they all (well almost all) be in on the conspiracy? Where are the leaked documents of the secret climate scientist's cabal saying: "Let's fool the world because, well ... we want to."? Who gains from this conspiracy? Why does every international government with the exception of the US believe this is true? (And even the US is slowly having to accept reality.) So, please, tell us. What is this grand conspiracy which involves almost all the world's governments and the majority of its climate scientists working together in secret to fool the public. Why does it exist? Who controls it?--Bobbing up 04:33, 6 November 2007 (EST)
The way some of the nuts in Congress put it, if you want to make it as a scientist, you have to buy in to global warming hoax or you'll be blackballed. The same goes for evolution, of course. The problem with this theory is that if you want to make a name for yourself, do you do exactly what all the other scientists are doing, or do you become one of the few mavericks who think GW is all a hoax? Writing a paper explaining how human actions can be causing an overall rise in temperatures is old hat and will get you ignored. A paper saying otherwise will immediately endear you to a large section of the public (the far-right and many large corporations) and will be widely cited by anyone who wants to believe it. Hell, Exxon might even put you on their payroll. Would anyone have herd of Michael Behe if he believed in natural selection? There's a clear financial motive for scientists to downplay the idea of GW. Although, I did hear someone in Congress say, in all seriousness, that the globl warming scare was about ratings for the Weather Channel. Whoever it was has all the rationality of a CP sysop. DickTurpis 09:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I've written this before. The best part about global warming from an American perspective is that when the ice caps melt a lot of those red states will become blue one way or another. --Edgerunner76 10:02, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I didn't get it then either, only reading DT's query below gave me an inkling, BLUE=Water...the red and blue *I* was thinking of was tap water red=hot/blue=cold. If you don't lay the track just right people will likely lose your train of thought. CЯacke®
You mean Florida and Louisiana? I think all the others are pretty safe, except for some coastal areas of the south. The Northeast will get hit harder than that. Joe Biden may find himself Senator of Waterworld. DickTurpis 10:13, 6 November 2007 (EST)
The Great Plains will be gone. They were once an inland sea, and they could be again. --Edgerunner76 10:28, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Not too sure. The lowest point in Iowa is still 480 feet above sea level. DickTurpis 11:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

With only a little positive feedback it's "Venus - here we come!" Republican and Democrat can boil together in a rather messy purple. Susanpurr 10:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I got bored waiting for out anon IP to tell us what his conspiracy was all about so I dun wrote a small article on it.--Bobbing up 14:00, 6 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Carbon sinks

This article refers several times to destroying carbon sinks. Can someone explain what is meant by that? Lurker 23:52, 8 November 2007 (EST)

A carbon sink is something which absorbs Carbon Dioxide. The phrase is, in fact, often misused as people tend to refer to forests as carbon sinks - but they are not really permanent sinks. A tree is a carbon sink as long as it's growing, but when it dies and rots the carbon it held is released back into the environment. (In geological times forests grew in vast anaerobic swamps and trees that fell did not rot but fell to the bottom of the swamp where they eventually became coal - these conditions now do not generally exist.) Obviously cutting the forest down and burning it instantly returns all the carbon to the atmosphere.
The main carbon sink we have at the moment is the ocean. Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean and small oceanic creatures form shells from calcium carbonate and, when they die, fall to the bottom of the deep ocean. This removes the carbon for geological timescales. Unfortunately, as the ocean dissolves more Carbon Dioxide the ability of these creatures to form shells will be reduced and the system may stop working. (The ocean will also incidentally become progressively more acidic with disastrous results for fish stocks.)--Bobbing up 05:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)
It's worth mentioning a couple of things on this point, one is that there are two mechanisms by which the ocean at large removes carbon from the atmosphere. The first, as Bob M describes, is that Carbon Dioxide devolves in the water itself. The second is that the ocean is chock full of photosynthetic Phytoplankton that act as the basis for the ocean ecosystem, much as plants do on land. I can't be bothered to look for a source right now, but I seem to remember that by mass Phytoplankton constitute the majority of living things on the planet and are therefore an extremely important part of the carbon cycle.
Humans are disrupting the ocean's ecosystem provably and considerably. On the macro (and the micro level) there is now a really significant amount of plastic in the oceans, such that is creates several kilometre wide rafts in places and generally adds to the opacity of water, decreasing phytoplankton volume. It's also believed that as the oceans become more acidic, this will also adversely effect them.
Other generally bad things worth mentioning is that as the oceans get warmer, the amount of carbon dioxide that may be dissolved in solution decreases. It is possible that after atmospheric carbon gets to a point where the oceans are saturated, this will become a fairly significant positive feedback loop. --Jeeves 05:33, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I know what carbon sinks are and I know about the temp/pH/CO2/CO3- relationship and all that; I just didn't know what you mean when you say we are destroying carbon sinks. As Bob said, most people think that cutting down trees destroys are carbon sinks, and I didn't know if that's what you were referring to (because, as Bob said, this would be wrong). The article just vaguely says "we are destroying our carbon sink" without bothering to define them or describe their destruction. Lurker 10:11, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Then you make a good point. Perhaps whoever put the "destroying carbon sinks" bit in would care to justify it. Otherwise a bit of editing may be necessary.--Bobbing up 11:06, 9 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Logical error

(Since this is a completely unrelated point I figured it'd be easier to make a separate heading here). In the "anthropomorphic climate change" section I think there's an implied assumption which isn't being mentioned. When you say "The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming" you are assuming that global warming is bad. I realize this probably sounds obvious to you, but to Denier Level 3 (and anyone basing their understanding entirely within the written word) this statment is not actually the consequence of the "blindingly obvious conclusion" (great humility in that phrasing, btw; but I digress). Lurker 23:58, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The good/bad scale of global warming is an awkward one with the denier. One argument I heard one time was "so the glaciers are retreating - would you rather they be advancing?" To which the answer is "no, I'd rather they stay put." Canada is rezoning their land - vineyards in British Colombia.[9] So as California gets too hot to support good wine grapes Canada gets better wines. Is that good or bad? Likewise, the grain belt is moving north too. Again, bad for the US, "good" for Canada.
The other point that will be argued is "the medieval optimum was a warming time and we got along just fine then." The problem has to do with the carrying capacity of the land. In 1000 CE the population of the world was about between 250,000,000 and 350,000,000. In 1950, it is 1000x that and today it is 2x more than it was in 1950.[10][11] While there have been many advances in technology going forward to allow for greater carrying capacity of the land, it is doubtful if we can support the 2,000x or 3,000x population (by 2050, the world population will be about 9,000,000,000 people) of the last time it was that warm.
One of the biggest problems coming up for the warmer wold and larger population is the depletion of fresh water. Give Peak Water a watch or read Washington Post.
It may be a "good" thing for the higher latitude countries (Russia, Canada)... but for mid lattitude and tropical, we're already seeing problems. The best way to argue a level 3 denier is to ask if the grain belt in the US is in part because of climate and what happens when Mexico's climate moves into Kansas and Kansas's climate is in Saskatchewan... will that be good or bad?
As a side note, a good/depressing SF book to read Hot Sky at Midnight. One of the main characters has a job as a captain of a ship hauling icebergs to California to supply drinking water... and you don't step outside without some super sunscreen. --Shagie 02:41, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Global warming is "bad" for a number of reasons. First of all it traps more energy in the whole atmosphere and this increased energy in the system leads to greater intensity and frequency of storms. Secondly it implies greater evaporation from the surface of the sea, and hence greater rainfall. (Contrary to many assumptions a warmer planet would have more rain not less.) Now it is possible that this will be an advantage if it falls in a nice ordered way in presently dry regions - but it may just as well result in a generalized increase in flooding. Thirdly it will result in a global increase in sea levels. A very large percentage of the world's population live near the sea and even the most modest predictions of sea level rises of a few meters would cause severe problems. Rises of tens of meters predicted by some models don't bear thinking about. Fourthly, Global warming will start to pass points where it triggers various positive feedback loops which will exacerbate it. For example melting the permafrost has the potential of releasing vast quantities of methane which would greatly amplify the warming effect which released them in the first place. Fifthly, the spread of exotic tropical diseases into cooler areas could cause many problems. I could go on, but I expect you get the drift.--Bobbing up 05:02, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I've put a list in the article of all the problems that occur to me off the top of my head. I'll expand them into paragraphs when I have a moment. (Unless somebody else does it first.)--Bobbing up 11:01, 9 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Recent story

From JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory): Concerning arctic changes. I'd wedge it in this article someplace if I cared but I don't so this is an FYI for those what do. CЯacke® 00:15, 18 November 2007 (EST)

So, add it... please? humanUser talk:Human 00:36, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I would additionally suggest you might consider either here Arctic and/or here Effects of global warming.--Bobbing up 03:55, 18 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Feel like being really angry?

Jesus wept, listening to this garbage really angried up my blood. These wankers are really convinced that there's a global conspiracy to ruin the US economy and take control of the USA by stealth, and everyone is in on it. The Media, the Scientists, the Politicians... everyone except Joe Public. The bit that made me most angry is where they mocked the idea of reducing their energy usage by as little as 30%. They seriously can't think of any other way to reduce energy usage than to lower their standard of living, whereas in Europe where we aren't all morons in fact energy efficiency is actually increasing people's disposable income, by means of lowering electricity bills through subsidised house insulation, solar heating, etc. Then there are the lasting benefits of better housing regulations...

Part two [substitute 'b' for the trailing 'a' in the URL] is even worse. They criticise Al Gore for investing in renewable energy R&D ("He stands to make millions if these get adopted".) Then there's the classic "The USA owns the North Pole", and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Best line ever: "Those other 150 countries hate us." No shit, Sherlock. Excuse me, I'll be in the angry dome. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 18:41, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I'm downloading it right now. EndGhost 18:49, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Jeeves, Jeeves, just cool down. Oh sorry, there's nowhere cool to go any more. :( Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:44, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Yah, Jeeves, stay away from Greenland for a bit, mkay?
BTW, you know of course that EF is run by our favorite YEC blogger/lawyer's dam, right? humanUser talk:Human 19:43, 26 November 2007 (EST)
The US owns the North Pole? Lurker 00:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Nah. Everyone who understands the issues involved agree that Denmark owns the North Pole. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I thought Santa owned the North Pole? --Edgerunner76 07:36, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I thought so too. I'm not sure what the significance to GW is though. Reindeer farts warming up the atmosphere or something? Lurker 12:55, 27 November 2007 (EST)
So, listening to it now. There are a few contradictions here. He says, CO2 is going up, (but this is good thing he says) and he also says CO2 is greenhouse gas. But he doesn't make the connection. For those who don't want to listen he also says: Kyoto would reduce world temperatures (a bit); but it's really a plot to control the US; Scientists only get grants if they say global warming is happening; they are part of a plot to control the world; most schools are involved in the conspiracy; the conspiracy is behind the increase in world fuel prices; the hockey stick graph is corrupt - but this was hushed up by the media - who are in on the conspiracy; computer models are deliberately distorted to show global warming; the world is warming - but because we are still leaving the "little ice age". Usual stuff. It was funny for a while but then got boring. Got to get part two to hear him say the US the North Pole though.  :-( --Bobbing up 11:25, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Well, nuff respect for having the stomach to find it funny. It definitely exceeded my threshold. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 13:36, 27 November 2007 (EST)

All that seckrit conspiracy stuff? It's so absurd it's got to raise a laugh. --Bobbing up 13:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)
And part two is even better. The US shouldn't join international organizations because it would only have one vote! And every other country hates the US!--Bobbing up 14:29, 27 November 2007 (EST):
Isn't Andy from Trenton, New Jersey Aschlafly? He has that same throttled way of talking. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I've never heard him speak, but the name "Andy" did sound a bit suspicious.--Bobbing up 15:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Bob, there are a few videos of him on YouTube. This one sounds particularly Mr. Beanish. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
That's the only one I could find, by searching andy schlafly. andrew returns none. Do we have more links? Should we embed them in a subarticle at andrew Schlafly? humanUser talk:Human 16:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Oh dear me. He does kind of sound like Mr. Bean, doesn't he? I'll never be able to watch Blackadder without thinking of assfly now. For setting up this association, it's my sad duty to inform you that you're now in the book of people first against the wall come the revolution. bop, bop, bop. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:14, 27 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15191

You know, a lot of that looks like they were making stuff up. Especially since the Antartic ice shelf HAS been shrinking, contrary to their claims. Find something from scientists, not conservative partisans. Researcher 00:06, 30 November 2007 (EST)

You don't understand--ALL scientists are partisans! They can't get jobs without swearing eternal allegiance to Al Gore and the Cult of the Sacred Mosquito! --Gulik 23:18, 1 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] What Global Warming really is

Global Warming - Natural or Artificial

by

Amitakh Stanford

1st June 2004

(See website for content) humanUser talk:Human 18:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

© 2004 Amitakh Stanford & AHSAF http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/global_warming.html Xee-A12 17:42, 1 December 2007 (EST)

If permission to reprint has not been obtained, this must be deleted. Perhaps you could substitute a link? Thanks. humanUser talk:Human 18:40, 1 December 2007 (EST) Never mind, I did it. humanUser talk:Human 18:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] 2008 American elections

Added a potentially controversial note about the elections. From what I have read none of the candidates seems to be a global warming skeptic. But someone from the US may know better. --Bobbing up 05:08, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Am I right that there is no candidate from a petrol family, à la Bush, this year? Ed @but not the Poor one! 06:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I think you may be right. Although I'm sure Big Oil, just like Big Pharma and Big Feminism, is making sure they line some campaign coffers. But it's not the same as the Bush/Cheney energy cabal, of course. And as far as GW skepticism, I think Gore's film made such an impact on the popular perception (ie, woke them up) that no one wants to get on the wrong side of that sentiment. humanUser talk:Human 08:06, 15 January 2008 (EST)
That's pretty conspiratorial of you all rational thinkers. Human was closest, though. How about this one: green energy is the new fad (even NBC had "green week", easily the stupidest thing to every happen to network TV, where all of their shows, except Heroes, apparently, were forced to have a "green" message) and politicians are smart enough that they can't say things like "I'm not going to support green initiatives", even if they think in their heart of hearts that GW is BS. The interesting question will be how many of them realize what works and what doesn't (nuclear: excellent; corn ethanol: not so much).
Also don't be so quick to think that when candidates say they support green energy that it means they won't support big oil. BP, for example, is dumping huge amounts of money into green energy research, as are most if not all high-pollutin' (and high-fallutin') industries. Lurker 12:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I put it up because I couldn't find any evidence that any of them were global warming skeptics. There may be various reasons for this - but are any of them declared global warming skeptics? If they are not, then this is surely an interesting development.--Bobbing up 12:18, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Lurker, that GWB's actions, regarding both Iraq and Kyoto, are influenced by his Oil roots, is, rightly or wrongly, a quite widespread "conspiration theory" in Europe. Ed @but not the Poor one! 12:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Re Bob: I agree that none of them seem to be outright skeptics (seems like some of the Reps might be, but I can't really remember any of them saying so in the recent debates) I just don't agree with your reasoning. You lack faith in the oil industries and their influence of politicians whereas I lack faith in the electorate and their influence of politicians :)
Re E@CP: it's a pretty widespread conspiracy theory here, as well. People loves to be hatin' on big oil and GWB, and Iraq, so why not all three at the same time? I just don't think it has that much merit. (Think about it this way: if the oil industry is powerful enough to (a) start a war and (b) elected president a very unpopular man, how is it that they can't get a single GW denier in the race when they are running record profits?) Lurker 13:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Lurker: I didn't give any reasoning. I simply pointed out they they weren't skeptics. They also seem to want "energy independence" so I suggested that peak oil might be a factor. But the most important thing to me is that they are not declared skeptics which suggests that the argument has been won. --Bobbing up 15:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Oh you are right. I got confused as to who said what.
I'm not sure that they are supporters so much as they say they are supporters, but it's the same difference, at least until they get into office. Lurker 15:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Why the revert?

I noticed that Editor at CP reverted an edit made by a random IP address. But its a well known fact that Global Warming is caused by farting. --Bysen 12:48, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Editor at CP is a double evil: he is an evil Liberal, and an evil editor of Conservapedia. Don't trust him. Ed @but not the Poor one! 12:51, 15 January 2008 (EST)
P.S. You may want to discuss such a revert on the talk page first. Ed @but not the Poor one! 12:52, 15 January 2008 (EST)
There is a grain of truth in there. Cattle flatulations are a significant greenhouse gas. - ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΥΣ - FORETHOUGHT 13:03, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Cattle BURP methane much more than they fart it. SusanPurrrrrrr 13:18, 15 January 2008 (EST)
There's a big difference between "Cattle flatulations are a significant greenhouse gas" and "Global warming is caused by farts."PFoster 13:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)
The latter uses the word "fart" so it's MUCH funnier. 13:50, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Cattle make methane when fed corn instead of grass, so it's actually people eating corn-fattened beef that produces the methane... humanUser talk:Human 19:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Not sure where to put this

It is important to understand the science behind where statements of past climate come from.

So, what do ice cores tell us about past climate? Ice cores contain water frozen at the time it was frozen. Fairly straight forward. The chemical structure of water is more than just simple H2O - the oxygen has different isotopes. Most of the oxygen on the planet is 16O (about 99.7%). The next largest bunch of oxygen is 18O at about 0.2%. The thing here is that 18O is slightly more massive than 16O and thus it takes less energy to evaporate it. In warmer conditions, the amount of H218O will be greater than in colder conditions.

From this, one can look at the ratio of oxygen isotopes in water or ice and determine what the average temperature was in that region.

One can also look at any other system that removes oxygen from the water at the time. To form calcite (found in the shells of animals) the animal takes CO2 in the water and calcium and forms CaCO3. This requires an additional oxygen atom which is taken from water releasing H2. Thus, 1/3 of the oxygen composition of fossilized shells contains clues as to the water temperature.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle

--Shagie 17:15, 25 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] No sun link to GW

Perhaps this can be used to substantiate the info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm 86.144.232.162 10:57, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


[edit] As cold as the Moon.

An IP editor has changed the introduction from This atmospheric warming is vital to all life on earth; without it the planet would be as cold as the moon. to would be 33 °C colder than today's average of 14 °C. Thinking this was too small a difference I find that the moon's temperature varies from 107 to -153. (Other sites have other numbers) . Maybe we should have "would have a temperature range similar to the Moon's 107 to -153C"?--Bobbing up 12:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Even with all that, wouldn't the Earth's geothermal heat make the temperature higher? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
I would speculate that, if there were no atmosphere, such heat would escape pretty rapidly into space.--Bobbing up 14:04, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
The geothermal thing is a big deal. Not only does it bring heat to the surface (via volcanic activity), but it creates an atmosphere, via vents and volcanoes. I say, unless the IP comes here with a reference, just revert it. humanUser talk:Human 14:17, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Greenhouse Effect and a thread on physics forums. The question is what is the radiative equilibrium temp for the earth? --Shagie 14:21, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. Actually, now I do the simple calculation the average of 107 and -153 is -23. But with only numbers which are so far apart the average seems pretty meaningless.--Bobbing up 14:38, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Partial rebuttal

In your "Hierarchy of GWDR" you need to add (at 1.5 i guess) one more: GW may indeed be happening, it's just that there is no evidence to support it. Nor is there any evidence that humans have any significant effect on climate change.

When i refer to "you", i have no idea who "you" is, but if "you" is several people, is it safe to assume you all have the same bias? I see no indication of a contrary view to anything on the page. (BTW, how do the terms denier and denialist differ?)

Shouldn't "Entrenched Interests" include all those scientists that would lose their wages if they became convinced there was no evidence to support AGW? The ratio of those paid to support AGW as opposed to those paid to disprove it is about a thousand to one. (A billion to a million, i read.)

Your "Consensus = liberal conspiracy?" brings up an interesting point. Any disinterested person looking at your page could not help but notice the strong political element on the AGW side. Bringing in references to Conservapedia, YEC, OEC -- are clear indicators.

I don't see how gibes at them helps your cause. You don't need to attract any more Liberals, do you? Al Gore has already won them over -- you need non-Liberals. Much better to make your case using science only.

And conspiracy is a much overused word. Is it a GOP conspiracy when most of them believe in lower taxes? Is it a Dem conspiracy that they tend to believe higher taxes is a good idea? Merely a confluence of opinion, i would say. But is there any question in your mind that AGW is heavily associated with Liberals?

If i put this stuff in the wrong place, or on the wrong page, kindly move it where you want it (the trashcan?) or tell me where, then i'll be glad to do it. Rem 23:15, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem. Each of these could be a seperate argument so I'll be brief.
I suppose that your first comment could go between 1 and 2. However as 1. says "It's not happening", and 2 says "It's happening but it's not caused by us." Adding one saying "It may be happening,but it's not caused by us." don't seem to add a lot. But, yes it could go in.
This article, like the majority of our articles, will have multiple authors.
I would say that "denier" and "denialist" are pretty synonymous, although "denialist" may have overtones of wilful denial of the truth.
In an ideal world Scientists should not be "paid to support" anything. There should be no political interference from either oil companies or governments in this research. There have been multiple accusations of the Bush government trying to suppress data about AIG. ExxonMobil has spent a vast amount of cash trying to rubbish Global Warming.
For information on our POV and style see RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article
Globally, AGW is pretty uncontroversial and is associated with climate science. In one country, the US, it unfortunately seems to have become a political football with various national politicians takings sides for political reasons. It is indeed sad that the US has gone down this different route as it distracts from issue.--Bobbing up 02:46, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I have largely overlooked this article even though as a geoscientist it is a topic of interest for me. However, having read the exchanges about Rem's post I gave the page a good read and agree with him about certain things. — Unsigned, by: Genghis Khant / talk / contribs
Firstly, what is the point of the article? Is it to examine the issue of AGW from a scientific viewpoint or is it a political piece? It seems to me that is more political. While the political issues cannot be excluded they should be separated from the science. While polls of "scientists" may indicate a consensus in support of AGW how many of those scientists are involved in climatology or climate research, as there are a significant number of climatologists who do not subscribe to the theory and we should remember that the truth is not a popularity contest.
Conservapedia's take on the issue is irrelevant. While it is a reflection of the "we don't like global warming because Kyoto will hurt the US economy and thereby impinge on our wealth, so sod the rest of you" attitude, a side by side piece of CP's article should be done elsewhere.
There are several factual errors, such as coal not timber was the driver of the industrial revolution. While there was significant timber use in Europe, deforestation globally was insignificant.
There is no mention of the 1500-year climate cycle (Dansgaard & Oeschger events) which may be significant component of the warming.
I'd like to point out that I have no political axe to grind as I am a firm believer in alternative energy sources and conservation. After all, it's only good housekeeping and petroleum reserves are not limitless. There is still a lot of oil out there but most of the easy stuff has been used up so it's going to be a lot more expensive. Jollyfish.gifGenghisevolving 05:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
@Rem - I'd be very surprised if 15% (1 billion) of the Earth's population are being paid to support AGW. Also AGW being associated with "Liberals" (how I hate the US usage of that word!) is mainly a US thing as AGW is accepted by most political parties in developed nations. In the UK the Conservative Party is trying to be even greener than the Labour Party and has adopted a tree as its logo. Jollyfish.gifGenghisevolving 06:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I guess the purpose of the article comes under Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, as the claim is made by some that global warming isn't happening, and a lot of stuff flows from that.
There is obviously never absolute consensus in science. There are (or at lease were) some some scientists who deny that AIDS is cause by HIV for example - but the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report seemed pretty confident. There were also climatologists who felt that it dit not go far enough, but it seems to represent the present consensus. I agree that consensus does not equal truth, but if the majority of climate scientists are in agreement it is presumably an indication.
I fully agree that the side-by-side should be elsewhere.
If there are factual errors or omissions then they need to be fixed, or brought to the talk page.--Bobbing up 06:10, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Just a little side note "A billion to a million" - meaning that one in six living humans are being "paid to support AGW"? Or am I reading that wrong? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)


Geoscientist (wish i knew who he was, he didn't leave his name) made some good points above (directly below Bob 02:46, 5 July 2008) and i have selected four of them:

geo> While the political issues cannot be excluded they should be separated from the science.

geo> While polls of "scientists" may indicate a consensus in support of AGW how many of those scientists are involved in climatology or climate research, as there are a significant number of climatologists who do not subscribe to the theory and we should remember that the truth is not a popularity contest.

geo> Conservapedia's take on the issue is irrelevant.

geo> There is no mention of the 1500-year climate cycle (Dansgaard & Oeschger events) which may be significant component of the warming.

Does someone here disagree with these? Are the authors of the GW article going to take note of these points and edit the article? I hope somebody will.

Genghis -- i agree with your post of 05:38, 5 July 2008, but let me respond to your post of 06:00, 5 July 2008 -- By a billion to a million, i meant funding in dollars. Those are old, so the amounts have surely increased. Sorry i didn't make that clear. The Libs and the Cons in the UK don't quite correspond to their cousins in the USA, do they? Is that why you hate our usage of the term Liberal?

Bob -- (ref your 06:10, 5 July 2008 post) -- When you say, "comes under Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement" that would seem to imply that the disagreement is simply between "science" versus "anti-science", but that is what the debate is about -- which is actually science, and which is not.

I know that some say AIDS is not caused by HIV, but i have not a clue about that topic, and don't see the connection to the AGW debate. I have looked into the AGW theory and am of the opinion that the evidence isn't there, that the proponents hope to win the argument thru some decidedly unscientific behavior, and that they haven't made their case yet.

You mention that the factual errors need to be fixed -- have they been? The original authors should do it, don't you think? How can we tell who they are?

Human -- You also interpreted my "billion to a million" remark in a way that would be preposterous. Apologies again for not being clearer, but in the future the best policy would be to interpret my comments in a way that makes me look brilliant. (That would be the Human thing to do.)

-- RemBeau 01:41, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, you're not making much of a case, especially with the scare quotes around "scientists" - correct, the truth is not a popularity contest - but the truth is what scientists pursue. And most climatologists (not random scientists) consider AGW to be a real problem. Anyway, as far as your comment to me directly, you said "The ratio of those paid to support AGW as opposed to those paid to disprove it is about a thousand to one. (A billion to a million, i read.)" I interpret your comments in the way you write them. They don't make you look brilliant, they make you look misinformed at best. You read, where? A billion/million what? You might try to express what you are saying more clearly. And the occasional reference wouldn't hurt if you think the article has its facts wrong. You know, like a link, at least, where we can go get edumakated. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Hi Rem. I responded to Genghis' comments below his entry. As I have already suggested on your talk page, it would be better if you went through your points one by one creating a new section for each one. You create a new header like this: ==Rem's first point==. Each point can then be thrashed out under its own section. I'm not trying to dodge issues, but if we don't do it this way things will be very difficult to follow.--Bobbing up 06:19, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] A few cents

While I absolutly believe in global warming being a man-caused event, I do have a few beliefs I would like to express/facts I believe should be considered -

  • Global warming WILL rise the Earths temperature to a point where the artic melts, sea levels WILL rise 30 feet, and the Earth will be irreversibly damaged.

Counterpoint - Back during the mid-late Cretaceous period, the Earth was about 7 degrees warmer than it is now, and reptiles were romping around in what is now Canada. While global warming may get more severe than that, my point is that, simply, life moves on.

  • Carbon dioxide is the strongest greenhouse gas

Counterpoint - While Carbon Dioxide is the most common gas, it is actually, on its own, not that strong. The worst one is actually water vapor.

  • The greenhouse emissions from natural sources are taken care of by nature, but gasses emitted by people are not.

Counterpoint - CO2 is CO2 is CO2. The source that it comes out of makes no diffirance in the chemical structure. While factories do make the problems a bit worse, they still emit the same gas, so this argument seems a bit moot to me.

[edit] A couple of other small details.

  1. As more clouds form due to global warming, it is entirely possible (due to the fact that he top of a cloud is white) that sunlight will be reflected back before it strikes Earth's surface.
  2. A volcanic eruption (a C02 and methane nightmare!) would release a sulfer compound (exact name escapes me) that coats the exterior of the upper layer of Earth's atmosphere. This happened after the Krackatoa eruption, causing a drop in the average temperature, and spawning blizzards in the middle of the U.S. summer.
  3. Global warming is just a bit fickle. While the average storm stregnth is increasing, and a warmer Earth does contribute to it, there is no telling how this trend will continue. Hurricanes, for example, require VERY specific conditions to form, and if the earths atmosphere is unstable enough, hurricanse won't be able to hit that sweet spot, rending them for the most part moot.
  4. If the entire United States followed a policy to reduce emissions, switched to alternative energy, and began the long hard journey, we would make a diffirance. If only, if only. By 2025, China is expected to outstrip the U.S. by greenhouse emissions (they are adding one Gigawatt of coal powered plants each year!)

[edit] Hope for the future

A long time ago, slavery, child labor, and poor meatpacking was considered fine, acceptable, and fair. It took a long time, and a few people who were willing to fight with a passion to fix things, but as time went on, Slavery was declared amoral, child labor was acknowledged as abusive, and you do not see unhygenical rats in your meat. A more recent story is the success with preventing CFC emissions. In much the same way oil companies are corrupting science, so to did CFC based companies. The dramatic exposure of the Ozone Hole was enough to spur action from the people, which stirred congress to pass regulations. CFCs are now near zero emissions. In the case of Global Warming, there is no "dramatic effect", no huge "Holy shit, that looks bad! Let's fix it NOW!". There is only "*Yawn*, what, global temperatures go up an average of five degrees? So what?". Unlike CFCs, there is no massive and overwhelming demand from the people for things to be fixed, there is an imbecile president in power who does not believe in global warming, and has taken repeated inaction. I think a quote will suffice here. "It doesn't take a majority to bring about change, only a tireless minority willing to light fires in peoples minds". I am happy to say that we at RW are working to light those fires.

Input on the above (all of it!) more than welcomed. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ thinking of what to say next

[edit] A few responses to a few cents

  • Counterpoint - Back during the mid-late Cretaceous period, the Earth was about 7 degrees warmer than it is now, and reptiles were romping around in what is now Canada. While global warming may get more severe than that, my point is that, simply, life moves on.

I agree completely - it's not the planet that's in danger. What's in danger is human life and civilisation.

  • Counterpoint - While Carbon Dioxide is the most common gas, it is actually, on its own, not that strong. The worst one is actually water vapor.

Actually the most common greenhouse gas is water vapour. That's why it has more effect. The strongest greenhouse gasses molecule for molecule are CFC's. New Scientist FAQ. The thing is that the most important one over which we have (or could have) some measure of control is carbon dioxide.--Bobbing up 05:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Re: "A couple... #4 (China)" - if the US develops technologies that are affordable enough for us to minimize our fossil fuel usage, surely other parts of the world will start to use them in place of the ever-more-expensive fuels? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:52, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Conservapeida

Can we start a general disentanglement of pages a put the parts relevant to CP in the Conservapedia namespace and keep the main name space mostly free of Conservapedia other than maybe the little CP template? \approx\pi 03:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I would hope so, yes. Without looking at anything (on my part), can you start to make it so? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Solutions or restrictions

We don't seem to have anything about possible solutions or restrictions on global warming, & I notice the same with the energy crisis, peak oil and overpopulation articles too (til I wrote a short section in the overpopulation one).

Also this is pretty long. Would it be a good idea to split all the stuff about denialists & refuting their arguments into a separate article? weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 19:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] Edit Comment

I realize that nobody will probably ever see it, but I wish to apologize for my obnoxious edit comment. I was using Microsoft Word spellchecker, and it marked "sceptic" as misspelled, and somehow I thought "septic" was spelled with two "c"s, and it was very late, and...well...it all just got out of hand. So, to all the English-speaking folks out there: sorry. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again. A Writer of Vaudevilles 08:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Stop whipping yourself! It doesn't matter. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 08:53, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support