3 ms·

Sounds like he has a reasonable grasp of the issues to me. He knows all the facts that the "Man made global warming" camp hide and don't tell people - such that

by axod 18y ago

Sounds like he has a reasonable grasp of the issues to me. He knows all the facts that the "Man made global warming" camp hide and don't tell people - such that London used to be full of vineyards because it was so hot etc. I think the problem is that man made global warming has become a very very convenient vehicle to get people to do things, and big business. It's become a religion - a movement on its own, regardless of the evidence one way or the other.

Retric 18y ago
Do you honestly feel that someone saying "Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. " has a reasonable grasp of the issues. Humans could drop global temperatures by 2 degrees if we wanted to use a bunch a nukes. Granted it would be short term and the down sides are far more than the value but saying "we can't" is not the same as saying it's a horrible idea. Over time people have constantly increased their control over the earth. Changing the weather is a large scale issue but so is building a dam. Like a dam the amount of energy you can control is significantly larger that that needed to build the control structure. And like a dam it's much simpler to channel the forces that are already at work than to start from scratch.
- axod 18y ago
  'Do you honestly feel that someone saying "Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. " has a reasonable grasp of the issues.' Yes. I'm not going to start another argument here, because like religious arguments, no one ever wins. If you want to spend your time worrying that it's slightly hotter than it was a few years ago, but still freezing compared to a few years before that, go ahead. Ice caps melt all the time. New ones form. Guess which event the media report.
  - Retric 18y ago
    That's a straw man argument. What makes religious arguments impossible to refute is the in ability to test life after death etc. However, building a device / system that control's the climate would tend to disprove that. I propose the urban heat island effect around New York, NY as one such device. Edit: It's also more than just temperature: "Partly as a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is about 28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with upwind.[1] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island PS: Unless your suggesting that at some point the sun will die as the natural cycle. But in terms of million year and less cycles humans can do a lot.
    - jgranby 18y ago
      He didn't say no one can refute a religious belief, he said that no one ever wins religious arguments, which is pretty much on the mark. I have a suspicion that you won't leave this discussion with a changed opinion about global warming, and I doubt that anything anyone's going to say here will make you change your mind. Personally, I agree with you that mankind could do something that would have a permanent effect on global temperature. I am simply of the opinion that there's nowhere near enough cogent evidence that this is what is happening. A paltry 150 years' worth of possibly inaccurate data, containing two decade-long periods of cooling? If you take away all the media hype and bias, there's not a lot there to convince me.
      - Retric 18y ago
        There are plenty of things that would change my stance on global worming. But, like most long studied subject's there is a lot of evidence to back up global worming. Everything from samples of arctic ice from thousands of years ago, to plant samples, weather models, and satellite data. But, the two basic factors that would change my mind are: #1) A well defined mechanism that limits the impact green house gasses on temperature and weather. #2) An accurate, global, and long term temperature measurement that strongly links global temperature to some other factor and shows little correlation with CO2. Which is more accurate than all the other data we have collected to this point. I studied the physics behind global climate models and there are other factors that impact temperature, but most of them are short term factors and CO2 has a stable long term impact. At the basic level CO2 changes how much energy leaks to space though the atmospheric absorption gaps in EM spectrum. At temperature rise that changes some but 280 kelvin vs. 282 kelvin is minor etc. Local areas can experience dramatic shifts in weather but as a global system energy in must equal energy out +/= extremely tiny fractions which are stored / released energy. etc. PS: I am willing to change my stance with new information which is why this is not a religious stance. But, without such information there is little reason to change my stance. Edit: The reason I called his statement as a religious argument is it equated the process where I gathered data to a religious viewpoint. However, if your staying that you feel global worming does not exist as a religious stance, I will stop talking, because there is little reason to present information to someone who does not care about it.

by axod 18y ago

Retric 18y ago

Do you honestly feel that someone saying "Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. " has a reasonable grasp of the issues. Humans could drop global temperatures by 2 degrees if we wanted to use a bunch a nukes. Granted it would be short term and the down sides are far more than the value but saying "we can't" is not the same as saying it's a horrible idea. Over time people have constantly increased their control over the earth. Changing the weather is a large scale issue but so is building a dam. Like a dam the amount of energy you can control is significantly larger that that needed to build the control structure. And like a dam it's much simpler to channel the forces that are already at work than to start from scratch.

axod 18y ago
'Do you honestly feel that someone saying "Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. " has a reasonable grasp of the issues.' Yes. I'm not going to start another argument here, because like religious arguments, no one ever wins. If you want to spend your time worrying that it's slightly hotter than it was a few years ago, but still freezing compared to a few years before that, go ahead. Ice caps melt all the time. New ones form. Guess which event the media report.
- Retric 18y ago
  That's a straw man argument. What makes religious arguments impossible to refute is the in ability to test life after death etc. However, building a device / system that control's the climate would tend to disprove that. I propose the urban heat island effect around New York, NY as one such device. Edit: It's also more than just temperature: "Partly as a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is about 28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with upwind.[1] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island PS: Unless your suggesting that at some point the sun will die as the natural cycle. But in terms of million year and less cycles humans can do a lot.
  - jgranby 18y ago
    He didn't say no one can refute a religious belief, he said that no one ever wins religious arguments, which is pretty much on the mark. I have a suspicion that you won't leave this discussion with a changed opinion about global warming, and I doubt that anything anyone's going to say here will make you change your mind. Personally, I agree with you that mankind could do something that would have a permanent effect on global temperature. I am simply of the opinion that there's nowhere near enough cogent evidence that this is what is happening. A paltry 150 years' worth of possibly inaccurate data, containing two decade-long periods of cooling? If you take away all the media hype and bias, there's not a lot there to convince me.
    - Retric 18y ago
      There are plenty of things that would change my stance on global worming. But, like most long studied subject's there is a lot of evidence to back up global worming. Everything from samples of arctic ice from thousands of years ago, to plant samples, weather models, and satellite data. But, the two basic factors that would change my mind are: #1) A well defined mechanism that limits the impact green house gasses on temperature and weather. #2) An accurate, global, and long term temperature measurement that strongly links global temperature to some other factor and shows little correlation with CO2. Which is more accurate than all the other data we have collected to this point. I studied the physics behind global climate models and there are other factors that impact temperature, but most of them are short term factors and CO2 has a stable long term impact. At the basic level CO2 changes how much energy leaks to space though the atmospheric absorption gaps in EM spectrum. At temperature rise that changes some but 280 kelvin vs. 282 kelvin is minor etc. Local areas can experience dramatic shifts in weather but as a global system energy in must equal energy out +/= extremely tiny fractions which are stored / released energy. etc. PS: I am willing to change my stance with new information which is why this is not a religious stance. But, without such information there is little reason to change my stance. Edit: The reason I called his statement as a religious argument is it equated the process where I gathered data to a religious viewpoint. However, if your staying that you feel global worming does not exist as a religious stance, I will stop talking, because there is little reason to present information to someone who does not care about it.