Should global warming result in global cooling

[stevoh]

1 False question based on false information. It was warmer, both regionally and arguably globally, a mere 600 years ago. The earth has had climate change for millenia upon millenia. Nothing has happened in the last 100 years that hasn't happened dozens of times before.

I am not talking temperature, I am talking CO2 concentration. Why is it higher, and why is it increasing faster, than any other time in the last 600 000 years?

[ScottSA]

1 False question based on false information. It was warmer, both regionally and arguably globally, a mere 600 years ago. The earth has had climate change for millenia upon millenia. Nothing has happened in the last 100 years that hasn't happened dozens of times before.

I am not talking temperature, I am talking CO2 concentration. Why is it higher, and why is it increasing faster, than any other time in the last 600 000 years?

Well, if it is, and that's very much up for debate, it begs for the question of why CO2 concentration was higher before 600,000 years ago?

[stevoh]

[quote name='stevoh' post='233042' date='Jun 28 2007, 11:35 AM'

I am not talking temperature, I am talking CO2 concentration. Why is it higher, and why is it increasing faster, than any other time in the last 600 000 years?

Well, if it is, and that's very much up for debate, it begs for the question of why CO2 concentration was higher before 600,000 years ago?

The CO2 concentrations up for debate thing is untrue. It is a proven fact. The debate mostly centers around the EFFECT of increasing CO2, does it cause global warming, or is current global warming unrelated?

The concentration of CO2 before 600 000 years ago was not necessarily higher, thats just how far back the ice core samples go. While there are times in earths history that the concentration was higher than today, the climate itself was also very different, something we are trying to avoid if we can help it.

So, instead of answering a question with another question, answer it. Where has that additional CO2 come from in the last 100 years, if not man? What event has occured in the last 100 years that has not occured in the prior 600 000 to cause this increase?

[ScottSA]

The concentration of CO2 before 600 000 years ago was not necessarily higher, thats just how far back the ice core samples go. While there are times in earths history that the concentration was higher than today, the climate itself was also very different, something we are trying to avoid if we can help it.

I would think that you'd want to rephrase this statement, since it blows an enormous hole in the hull of your argument.

[stevoh]

The concentration of CO2 before 600 000 years ago was not necessarily higher, thats just how far back the ice core samples go. While there are times in earths history that the concentration was higher than today, the climate itself was also very different, something we are trying to avoid if we can help it.

I would think that you'd want to rephrase this statement, since it blows an enormous hole in the hull of your argument.

Still can't answer the question eh?

[ScottSA]

The concentration of CO2 before 600 000 years ago was not necessarily higher, thats just how far back the ice core samples go. While there are times in earths history that the concentration was higher than today, the climate itself was also very different, something we are trying to avoid if we can help it.

I would think that you'd want to rephrase this statement, since it blows an enormous hole in the hull of your argument.

Still can't answer the question eh?

I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it came from man, maybe it came from cows, and maybe it blew out Barney's ass. All of which is completely irrelevant if GW has happened before. Since GW has happened before, many times, never by the agency of humans, then why are you hinging your argument on the presence of CO2? My understanding is that CO2 is if anything an aftereffect of warming and not a causal agent.

Now that we've got that out of the way, you freely admit that the climate has changed before, through warming and cooling spells, yet paradoxically claim that this particular worming spell must be the result of an agent never present in previous warming spells: humans.

[stevoh]

I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it came from man, maybe it came from cows, and maybe it blew out Barney's ass. All of which is completely irrelevant if GW has happened before. Since GW has happened before, many times, never by the agency of humans, then why are you hinging your argument on the presence of CO2? My understanding is that CO2 is if anything an aftereffect of warming and not a causal agent.

Now that we've got that out of the way, you freely admit that the climate has changed before, through warming and cooling spells, yet paradoxically claim that this particular worming spell must be the result of an agent never present in previous warming spells: humans.

Of course the climate has changed before. From absolutely freaking cold to tropical in the arctic. Weather has a lot of reasons for changing, many of which are used as counter points to global warming being caused by CO2 concentrations, like solar flares, other greenhouses gases, you name it.

Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now. If a comet hit earth and released enough contaminants in the atmosphere to change our weather, or if man released the same amount of contaminants over time, what difference does it make? A cause and effect can occur regardless of the source of the change.

Myself, I am about 80% sure that CO2 is causing some kind of change. But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing.

In other words, if even global warming is a bunch of garbage, ending up with a cleaner planet, less polution, and people using our resources more efficiently is still a positive result.

[gc1765]

Of course the climate has changed before. From absolutely freaking cold to tropical in the arctic. Weather has a lot of reasons for changing, many of which are used as counter points to global warming being caused by CO2 concentrations, like solar flares, other greenhouses gases, you name it.

Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now. If a comet hit earth and released enough contaminants in the atmosphere to change our weather, or if man released the same amount of contaminants over time, what difference does it make? A cause and effect can occur regardless of the source of the change.

Myself, I am about 80% sure that CO2 is causing some kind of change. But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing.

In other words, if even global warming is a bunch of garbage, ending up with a cleaner planet, less polution, and people using our resources more efficiently is still a positive result.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[B. Max]

Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now.

and just because it hasn't in the past doesn't mean it will in the future, nor is there any evidence it is now.

[ScottSA]

Of course the climate has changed before. From absolutely freaking cold to tropical in the arctic. Weather has a lot of reasons for changing, many of which are used as counter points to global warming being caused by CO2 concentrations, like solar flares, other greenhouses gases, you name it.

Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now. If a comet hit earth and released enough contaminants in the atmosphere to change our weather, or if man released the same amount of contaminants over time, what difference does it make? A cause and effect can occur regardless of the source of the change.

Myself, I am about 80% sure that CO2 is causing some kind of change. But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing.

In other words, if even global warming is a bunch of garbage, ending up with a cleaner planet, less polution, and people using our resources more efficiently is still a positive result.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

No one could. What he said amounts to "maybe our influence has an effect, and I believe it does." What more can be said by anyone? And so what?

Everyone is in favor of weaning us off non-renewable energy and making better use of resources...how can one argue with that? But that's often used as a mask for throwing ridiculous amounts of money at a problem that may not even exist. It's like the feminist ploy of howling for "equity hiring" and endless special considerations, and then, when called on it, retreating to the defense that all they ever asked for was "equality."

Oh, and reducing CO2 is quite different from cleaning up the planet.

[gc1765]

Everyone is in favor of weaning us off non-renewable energy and making better use of resources...how can one argue with that?

Great. How do you suggest we go about doing that?

[B. Max]

Everyone is in favor of weaning us off non-renewable energy and making better use of resources...how can one argue with that?

I would suggest everyone is not in favor of that, but if you five hundred trillion dollars that might be a start.

[ScottSA]

Everyone is in favor of weaning us off non-renewable energy and making better use of resources...how can one argue with that?

Great. How do you suggest we go about doing that?

Turn off your computer. It'll save the electricity.

[B. Max]

Turn off your computer. It'll save the electricity.

He he he.

[gc1765]

Turn off your computer. It'll save the electricity.

It runs on hydroelectric power. Got anything else...preferably something where everyone is on board?

[B. Max]

So why won't Gore debate anyone who really knows something about climate. I think the answer is quite clear. Gore knows man global warming is a scam.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13833

[speaker]

I think it might be useful to remember that most of our media these days relies on advertising dollars to keep it going, It's only natural that the media caters to it's sponsors by trying it's best to present the denialists point of view whenever asked. To suggest that the press is ignoring a serious counterpoint to the un's reports doesn't make a lot of sense.

It must be therefore that the Newsbusters and the heartland think tank are trying to bring a tempest out of a teapot as has happened so many times before. The UN has the integrity to hire people it knows will call into question its assumptions and its conclusions. It then has the honesty to report that the people it hired disagree with some aspects of the work. the deniers then sieze on this as "proof" that the UN hasn't got it right.

I think a debate would be really useful. Perhaps the people who support the Heartland institute would share the cost of a nationally televised discussion between the scientists who are within the consensus and the scientists who have stuck to their guns in the face of this obvious intergovernmental scam, and denied that global warming is being forced by manmade CO2. I'd love to see that.

[B. Max]

It must be therefore that the Newsbusters and the heartland think tank are trying to bring a tempest out of a teapot as has happened so many times before. The UN has the integrity to hire people it knows will call into question its assumptions and its conclusions. It then has the honesty to report that the people it hired disagree with some aspects of the work. the deniers then sieze on this as "proof" that the UN hasn't got it right.

The UN and Gore are equally matched in credibility.

Does Al Gore really believe in catastrophic global warming?

Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 5 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 11 hours, 8 minutes, and 43 seconds have elapsed.

[ScottSA]

I think it might be useful to remember that most of our media these days relies on advertising dollars to keep it going, It's only natural that the media caters to it's sponsors by trying it's best to present the denialists point of view whenever asked.

I was with you to the first part, but after that you went in the wrong direction.

The money lies in exploiting and amplifying the alleged "crisis." There is an entire industry...nay, industries...built up around the premise that a ) GW is manmade, and B ) that it is a disaster. In fact, a whole new subfield has arisen within the media itself: "environmmental reporters." The money doesn't lie in keeping a debate going, the money lies in building an ever more horrendous scenario and shitting on alleged "deniers" (I love this attempt to cast the other side in the terminology of holocaust deniers. I think I'll start refering to GW proponents as "mass murdering shitheads," just to strengthen my case to the same degree mass murdering shitheads believe they are by invoking the holocaust).

[speaker]

This is going to strengthen your case?lol don't see it myself. I don't know any mass murderers amongst the environmentalists that I know, and while there is the occasional shithead, you come across them everywhere even amongst the deniers. Denying global warming doesn't make you a holocaust denier.

It just makes you a global warming denier. Although come to think of it there might be a case for the line out of Shakespeare, "methinks he doth protest too much". My apologies to Shakespeare fans if I got that wrong.

If you stop for a second and look at the amount of money being made by maintaining a business as usual attitude towards global warming perhaps you will notice that environmentalists, when they are paid make somewhat less than their opposition in this particular battle. Auto makers, oil and gas, and coal companies. Industry that just doesn't want to have to improve their processes to lessen their impact on the environment, because they make more money the way they operate now. It is a pretty significant chunk of change available to buy the mainstream press with.

[margrace]

I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it came from man, maybe it came from cows, and maybe it blew out Barney's ass. All of which is completely irrelevant if GW has happened before. Since GW has happened before, many times, never by the agency of humans, then why are you hinging your argument on the presence of CO2? My understanding is that CO2 is if anything an aftereffect of warming and not a causal agent.

Now that we've got that out of the way, you freely admit that the climate has changed before, through warming and cooling spells, yet paradoxically claim that this particular worming spell must be the result of an agent never present in previous warming spells: humans.

Of course the climate has changed before. From absolutely freaking cold to tropical in the arctic. Weather has a lot of reasons for changing, many of which are used as counter points to global warming being caused by CO2 concentrations, like solar flares, other greenhouses gases, you name it.

Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now. If a comet hit earth and released enough contaminants in the atmosphere to change our weather, or if man released the same amount of contaminants over time, what difference does it make? A cause and effect can occur regardless of the source of the change.

Myself, I am about 80% sure that CO2 is causing some kind of change. But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing.

In other words, if even global warming is a bunch of garbage, ending up with a cleaner planet, less polution, and people using our resources more efficiently is still a positive result.

Exactly we don't know if we are causing the change but I do know that for 60 some years the weather was stable where I lived but the last 10 and especially the last 3 years have been terrible. So are we causing it I don't know but if there is a chance we are then anyone with a bit of sense would start changing their ways. At 72 I won't be here to see the results but my first great grandchild is on the way and what will happen to that little person's way of life. I know you young bucks are just like the ones that race on our highways and cause such horrendous accidents. Of Course it won't happen to you.

[noahbody]

But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing.

Is unemployment and no health care a good thing? Might be wise to consider the effect on our resource-based ecomomy before you jump on the 'going away from using non-renewable energy" bandwagon. No need to throw the baby away with the bath water.

[speaker]

Your concern is that is we quit exporting our natural resources, specifically our oil, and gas, and coal, that we won't be able to afford health care and that we will all be unemployed. There is a pile of employment in the fossil fuels sector, and the taxes from employment and resource extraction help pay for our services and the spin off employs more people. I don't think there is any doubt about that.

The point is that people could give up driving unnecessarily large vehicles, could take the train rather than fly, could live in insulated draft free houses, spend a little less time on recreational vehicles and mowing their lawns with gas powered mowers, take public tranit instead of driving themselves around the bend. The money saved, the energy not spent, the infrastructure costs reduced all add up to enough savings that we could probably maintain healthcare and hire people to put in greener energy systems. That would provide spinoffs in the same way that our current fossil fuel industries do. In fact I heard years ago that the big megaprojects like the tarsands provide fewer jobs than conservation oriented technology and investment.

And to top it all off we will have our fossil fuels to sell as the value of it continues to increase as the impacts of peak oil trickle into the economy.

[B. Max]

The point is that people could give up driving unnecessarily large vehicles, could take the train rather than fly, could live in insulated draft free houses, spend a little less time on recreational vehicles and mowing their lawns with gas powered mowers, take public tranit instead of driving themselves around the bend. The money saved, the energy not spent, the infrastructure costs reduced all add up to enough savings that we could probably maintain healthcare and hire people to put in greener energy systems. That would provide spinoffs in the same way that our current fossil fuel industries do. In fact I heard years ago that the big megaprojects like the tarsands provide fewer jobs than conservation oriented technology and investment.

All original wealth comes from the ground and there are only four core industries that produce all of the countries original wealth.

Yours is a Marxist receipe for tyranny and poverty.

[ScottSA]

The point is that people could give up driving unnecessarily large vehicles, could take the train rather than fly, could live in insulated draft free houses, spend a little less time on recreational vehicles and mowing their lawns with gas powered mowers, take public tranit instead of driving themselves around the bend. The money saved, the energy not spent, the infrastructure costs reduced all add up to enough savings that we could probably maintain healthcare and hire people to put in greener energy systems. That would provide spinoffs in the same way that our current fossil fuel industries do. In fact I heard years ago that the big megaprojects like the tarsands provide fewer jobs than conservation oriented technology and investment.

Your grasp of economic principles is not good. One does not "save" capital by gutting demand for a principle market.