4 ms·

I don't think any intelligent reasonable person objects to the fact that the global temperature is rising. As for Human activity being the cause that is far fro

by zaphar 17y ago

I don't think any intelligent reasonable person objects to the fact that the global temperature is rising. As for Human activity being the cause that is far from settled. Don't get me wrong I'm all for reducing emissions and generally doing anything we can to reduce our impact as much as is possible because it's just good sense. But stating that the industrial age caused the rise when we really have so little understanding of how all this works rankles me just a bit. I especially object to the attempts to assign blame as a scare tactic for political gain. Especially when there are equally valid reasons to reduce emissions and lessen our impact local air quality and increased efficiency in manufacturing being just a few of the reasons. The plain fact is that while there "might" be a correlation with Human activity that does not imply a cause and effect relationship out of hand. I don't think we really have enough data or understanding yet to make an assumption regarding the cause. [Edit: I had a misplaced sentence which totally made that read wrong. Just fixed it]

SamAtt 17y ago
You echo my thoughts on the issue. But what really bothers me is the logical outgrowth of that logic. What I mean is, as you said, most agree the planet is getting warmer. That's the actual problem here. But Global Warming advocates are so convinced of their absolute infallibility that they're suggesting a solution based on a cause they can't prove. So my question is "What if they're wrong?" If the Global Warming movement really believes this trend will lead to the end of life as we know it shouldn't they be considering all options? Shouldn't someone be talking about ways to live if their climate predictions are correct and we aren't the cause? The fact that they completely ignore that side of the issue tells me their pushing an agenda not trying to solve the actual problem.
- zaphar 17y ago
  Indeed, Any solution that assumes the wrong cause may cause just as much harm as it does good. For all we really know the trend could suddenly halt or accelerate despite our attempts to "control" it. When political goals drive the debate then true discourse gets drowned out and progress may either stop or continue in the wrong direction.
iuguy 17y ago
Except for the fact that global temperature is falling, not rising - dependent on how (and where) you measure it. That's part of the problem. We don't know enough about how this highly complex climate system works to measure it consistently. Given the variation between the hottest and coldest places on earth are somewhere around 100 degrees celsius I have real problems with the term global warming as a whole. It's a series of interconnected problems with interconnected knock-on effects.
- skorgu 17y ago
  > Except for the fact that global temperature is falling, not rising - dependent on how (and where) you measure it. Cite please. I'm not doubting your sincerity at all but this is not something I've heard presented as fact elsewhere.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    While it's a reasonable view to hold that temps have been falling since 1998, it's hard to point out a source (on either side) that hasn't been called into question. Just google on "global temperature since 1998" and similar, and you'll see lots of partisan debate and screaming about it on the front page. Unfortunately, everyone on both sides seems to cherrypick data to avoid letting facts get in the way of Truth, and it's very hard to know who, if anyone, has an unbiased desire to present data.
    - skorgu 17y ago
      With all due respect, you haven't answered the question. You've made a factual statement: "global temperature is falling." It should be trivial to back that statement up with evidence. You refuse to do so, and in doing so reframe your original point to the substantially weaker statement "temps have been falling since 1998." That latter assertion is indeed trivial to support: here[1] is a data set that supports that second assertion. You will note the central point that the narrowly-framed question can be true while the broad implication can be false. If you are going to stand by the statement "global temperature is falling" I would again ask for a citation. If you cannot or will not back up your assertion with evidence, please do not couch them in the terminology of fact. "JFGI" is not a citation. [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugliness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugl...

by zaphar 17y ago

SamAtt 17y ago

You echo my thoughts on the issue. But what really bothers me is the logical outgrowth of that logic. What I mean is, as you said, most agree the planet is getting warmer. That's the actual problem here. But Global Warming advocates are so convinced of their absolute infallibility that they're suggesting a solution based on a cause they can't prove. So my question is "What if they're wrong?" If the Global Warming movement really believes this trend will lead to the end of life as we know it shouldn't they be considering all options? Shouldn't someone be talking about ways to live if their climate predictions are correct and we aren't the cause? The fact that they completely ignore that side of the issue tells me their pushing an agenda not trying to solve the actual problem.

zaphar 17y ago
Indeed, Any solution that assumes the wrong cause may cause just as much harm as it does good. For all we really know the trend could suddenly halt or accelerate despite our attempts to "control" it. When political goals drive the debate then true discourse gets drowned out and progress may either stop or continue in the wrong direction.

iuguy 17y ago

Except for the fact that global temperature is falling, not rising - dependent on how (and where) you measure it. That's part of the problem. We don't know enough about how this highly complex climate system works to measure it consistently. Given the variation between the hottest and coldest places on earth are somewhere around 100 degrees celsius I have real problems with the term global warming as a whole. It's a series of interconnected problems with interconnected knock-on effects.

skorgu 17y ago
> Except for the fact that global temperature is falling, not rising - dependent on how (and where) you measure it. Cite please. I'm not doubting your sincerity at all but this is not something I've heard presented as fact elsewhere.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  While it's a reasonable view to hold that temps have been falling since 1998, it's hard to point out a source (on either side) that hasn't been called into question. Just google on "global temperature since 1998" and similar, and you'll see lots of partisan debate and screaming about it on the front page. Unfortunately, everyone on both sides seems to cherrypick data to avoid letting facts get in the way of Truth, and it's very hard to know who, if anyone, has an unbiased desire to present data.
  - skorgu 17y ago
    With all due respect, you haven't answered the question. You've made a factual statement: "global temperature is falling." It should be trivial to back that statement up with evidence. You refuse to do so, and in doing so reframe your original point to the substantially weaker statement "temps have been falling since 1998." That latter assertion is indeed trivial to support: here[1] is a data set that supports that second assertion. You will note the central point that the narrowly-framed question can be true while the broad implication can be false. If you are going to stand by the statement "global temperature is falling" I would again ask for a citation. If you cannot or will not back up your assertion with evidence, please do not couch them in the terminology of fact. "JFGI" is not a citation. [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugliness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugl...