NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sorry, but in my whole time here, in every thread I've ever seen dealing with Global Warming/Climate Change, there seems to be a dearth of information/sources/studies that challenge the idea that man is contributing to the acceleration of climate change. The best of seen is old data directly contradicted by newer studies, in some cases by the same scientist(s) who contributed the original study (specifically the oft-cited Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen study that showed a correlation in solar patterns and global temperature change...which a later study by Lassen showed failed to account for the entirety of the global temperature change unless man's influence was included. Google for [global warming Lassen].

So. What's the best of the information out there. I want to see it. I really would like to understand better if there really are good arguments that weaken the hypothesis that man is accelerating global climate change.

Who will be the first to step up?

This is a lot like Daffy Duck on stage...
*chirp, chirp*

Let me start by challenging the most basic premise of the entire manmade climate change argument.

What separates Man and the climate changes we may or may not cause from the natural climate changes of the Earth? I question the idea that we are an 'unforeseen X-factor' in Earth's climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think that man is any more or less important than climate changes caused by volcanoes or cow flatulence or any other source of greenhouse gasses(or the dissipation thereof) on this planet. I also question the notion that we are beyond Earth's climate's ability to handle.

Let me start by challenging the most basic premise of the entire manmade climate change argument.

What separates Man and the climate changes we may or may not cause from the natural climate changes of the Earth? I question the idea that we are an 'unforeseen X-factor' in Earth's climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think that man is any more or less important than climate changes caused by volcanoes or cow flatulence or any other source of greenhouse gasses(or the dissipation thereof) on this planet. I also question the notion that we are beyond Earth's climate's ability to handle.

Point one: We are the only players in the greenhouse game with the ability to alter our habits. That's what distinguishes us from the rest of the influences that also affect world climate. We are also, in geological time, a very recent and very unique factor in the global environment.

Point two: The Earth climate's ability to handle us is not the point. How uncomfortable/expensive/costly in other ways it is for us while the Earth is "handling" it is.

Point three: You failed to comply with the basic premise of the thread. If you have some kind of proof that man's contribution to global climate is inconsequential, please post it. You can say whatever you like, but as someone who has taken the time and effort to regularly post sources to back up my argument, forgive me if I don't give much weight to unsupported assertions.

Let me start by challenging the most basic premise of the entire manmade climate change argument.

What separates Man and the climate changes we may or may not cause from the natural climate changes of the Earth? I question the idea that we are an 'unforeseen X-factor' in Earth's climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think that man is any more or less important than climate changes caused by volcanoes or cow flatulence or any other source of greenhouse gasses(or the dissipation thereof) on this planet. I also question the notion that we are beyond Earth's climate's ability to handle.
Let's see...

If you happen to have a car with a hole in the gastank, you are depending on the car to go somewhere, and you can clearly observe that your actions are making more holes in the tank, do you not think it's incredibly daft to not at least consider changing your actions?

It's not that the car will stop working just because you help poking holes in the tank. The car will work regardless. You might end up with a tranport problem though.

First of all, the slightest movement of a particle can effect anything, including whether. Second, there will always be different studies of people contradicting each other, because they are trying to prove the opposite. This does not mean that either of them are wrong.

First of all, the slightest movement of a particle can effect anything, including whether. Second, there will always be different studies of people contradicting each other, because they are trying to prove the opposite. This does not mean that either of them are wrong.

Yes, but we only see studies from one side. The whole point fo this thread was to see the studies from the other side, what those studies say about prior studies and what subsequent studies say in return.

Unfortunately, because only one side (the side arguing that man is dangerously affecting the environment,) troubles themselves to present their supported evidence, we aren't getting the whole picture, right?

Gee, if I've accidentally biased myself in favor of the proposition that man is contributing to global warming/climate change, I sure would like some nice hard information to help me correct my error.

Gym, I suspect you'll be waiting in vain. Noone in the scientific community is disputing human behaviour speeds up global warming. Currently it's about the level of impact, not whether it's happening.

Point one: We are the only players in the greenhouse game with the ability to alter our habits. That's what distinguishes us from the rest of the influences that also affect world climate. We are also, in geological time, a very recent and very unique factor in the global environment.

Point two: The Earth climate's ability to handle us is not the point. How uncomfortable/expensive/costly in other ways it is for us while the Earth is "handling" it is.

Point three: You failed to comply with the basic premise of the thread. If you have some kind of proof that man's contribution to global climate is inconsequential, please post it. You can say whatever you like, but as someone who has taken the time and effort to regularly post sources to back up my argument, forgive me if I don't give much weight to unsupported assertions.

Response One: What reason do I have to believe we can control climate better? A mere 100 years or weather statistics?

Response two: WHat reason do I have to think that we can effectively 'keep ourselves comfortable' and not screw up worse? Our record with environmental manipulation up until now is dismal.

Response three: I'm challenging the even more basic premise that man's contribution to global clomate is not a vital part of global climate. I would say that until we can decide that there's a problem, that the source of said problem is rather irrelevant.

Response One: What reason do I have to believe we can control climate better? A mere 100 years or weather statistics?

Response two: WHat reason do I have to think that we can effectively 'keep ourselves comfortable' and not screw up worse? Our record with environmental manipulation up until now is dismal.

Response three: I'm challenging the even more basic premise that man's contribution to global clomate is not a vital part of global climate. I would say that until we can decide that there's a problem, that the source of said problem is rather irrelevant.

How am I supposed to give your words any weight when you refuse to support them in any way shape or form. Why is your opinion important if you can't follow simple instructions?

Response One: What reason do I have to believe we can control climate better? A mere 100 years or weather statistics?
After less that 100 years of experience with it, how can you possibly conclude you're alive? No, the sciences that back you aren't that much older, so they're invalidated as well.
Response two: WHat reason do I have to think that we can effectively 'keep ourselves comfortable' and not screw up worse? Our record with environmental manipulation up until now is dismal.
Alright... Humans constantly cause accidents for themselves, so why shouldn't you get in a car, put the pedal to the metal & aim for the nearest concrete wall? You might get killed by a crashing airplane, accidentially shoot yourself in the face with a 12-gauge, or otherwise end your existence... So why not do something that will obviously harm you?
Response three: I'm challenging the even more basic premise that man's contribution to global clomate is not a vital part of global climate. I would say that until we can decide that there's a problem, that the source of said problem is rather irrelevant.
Even if our technological advances, that cause the speeded-up global warming, is part of some greater scheme of things, why shouldn't we try to change it? I, and most other humans, appreciate having a globe fit to live on, and even if that's not how it's supposed to be, I honestly don't give a fuck. I value being able to live & prosper on this planet, and I value that my fellow humans can do the same. If that's not how it's supposed to be, then fuck how it's supposed to be.

And as Gym said, why don't you provide some factual support for your... whatever it is.

Let me start by challenging the most basic premise of the entire manmade climate change argument.

What separates Man and the climate changes we may or may not cause from the natural climate changes of the Earth? I question the idea that we are an 'unforeseen X-factor' in Earth's climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think that man is any more or less important than climate changes caused by volcanoes or cow flatulence or any other source of greenhouse gasses(or the dissipation thereof) on this planet. I also question the notion that we are beyond Earth's climate's ability to handle.

What do you suppose would happen if every nation's nuclear arsenal were detonated simultaneously? Just the Tsar Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) by itself released 1% of the energy emitted by the sun. The world's arsenal would char up the whole earth. Natural events like eruptions or earthquakes are simply not comparable to a simultaneous 10,000 megaton thermonuclear explosion.

We can really fuck this earth up, seriously. Fission reactions are chain reactions and don't have thresholds, so if we wanted to we could make a bomb to blow the earth in two. That's the extent of mankind's capability, and we still have a lot of technological potential left to unearth, so it's nothing to belittle.

See, the side denying global warming HAS NO ARGUMENT. They can blather on all they want, but when it comes down to it, they can't produce a goddamn thing that back up their point of view. They can't do it now, and they won't do it in the future. We're supposed to take their word for it. 'Cause that's all they have.

See, the side denying global warming HAS NO ARGUMENT. They can blather on all they want, but when it comes down to it, they can't produce a goddamn thing that back up their point of view. They can't do it now, and they won't do it in the future. We're supposed to take their word for it. 'Cause that's all they have.

just be thankful that they haven't found a way to make anthropogenic climate change go against their reading of the bible yet

just be thankful that they haven't found a way to make anthropogenic climate change go against their reading of the bible yet
Funny. It sounds a whole lot like at least a couple of the regular climate posters here, believes just that.

First of all, the slightest movement of a particle can effect anything, including whether. Second, there will always be different studies of people contradicting each other, because they are trying to prove the opposite. This does not mean that either of them are wrong.Um, yes it does. If one study says something and the other clearly contradicts it, then one of those studies is wrong, unless they're on philosophy.

Still nothing. That is all.

Come on, can't anyone post anything that makes a solid argument against man-influenced climate change? Anyone? Hello?

Well Gymoor, it seems like no one on nation states wants to argue against man-influenced climate change. In fact, it seems reasonable to assume (based on this thead at any rate) that you're the only one here who really wants to have a serious discussion about the issue at all. So instead of demanding counter-arguements from people who don't want to argue, why don't you poke around this site (http://www.globalwarming.org/) for a bit to amuse yourself? Let me know what you think.

I'm sorry, but in my whole time here, in every thread I've ever seen dealing with Global Warming/Climate Change, there seems to be a dearth of information/sources/studies that challenge the idea that man is contributing to the acceleration of climate change. The best of seen is old data directly contradicted by newer studies, in some cases by the same scientist(s) who contributed the original study (specifically the oft-cited Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen study that showed a correlation in solar patterns and global temperature change...which a later study by Lassen showed failed to account for the entirety of the global temperature change unless man's influence was included. Google for [global warming Lassen].

So. What's the best of the information out there. I want to see it. I really would like to understand better if there really are good arguments that weaken the hypothesis that man is accelerating global climate change.

Who will be the first to step up?


Well, while I'm doing that, you look up a study that has passed major critical review that certifies that global warming is man-made - not that it's not occurring - I won't argue that it's warming - but is it man-made?

And how have they proven it? I'd like to see how.

Well, as far as I know, polar flip plays into it a bit.

Well Gymoor, it seems like no one on nation states wants to argue against man-influenced climate change. In fact, it seems reasonable to assume (based on this thead at any rate) that you're the only one here who really wants to have a serious discussion about the issue at all. So instead of demanding counter-arguements from people who don't want to argue, why don't you poke around this site (http://www.globalwarming.org/) for a bit to amuse yourself? Let me know what you think.

And this is what I found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalwarming.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition

Well, while I'm doing that, you look up a study that has passed major critical review that certifies that global warming is man-made - not that it's not occurring - I won't argue that it's warming - but is it man-made?

And how have they proven it? I'd like to see how.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=447049&page=15&highlight=global+warming

for someone with a photographic memory who can read at 5,000 WPM, you have a short memory for threads.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...cienceFAQ.html

And from a PH. D. with over 100 peer reviewed articles:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/envi...t/chanton.html

Wiki too, which contains many many many links to peer-reviewed reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Another page of links to review at your own leasure:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming....eferences.html

Googles own link page on it:

http://www.google.com/Top/Science/En...Global_Change/

A page of links about the danger of Climate Change. Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online. Print issues are available by paid subscription.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/topic/global/toc.html

http://vivisimo.aaas.org/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?input-form=simple&query=global+warming&v%3Asources=AAAS-Google&v%3Aproject=query-meta&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Go