The climate of disastrous consensus

he's skewing the data.. somewhere, we went through this already. I'll look around and try and find it..

 

Which is why its just better to err on the side of caution. Is it really so bad to have less smog and polluted waters?

 

I think the better question is is there something to counter the carbon dioxide left in the earth and if not, where does the carbon dioxide go so that there is no effect................

 

Why is that a better question?

 

because its one I think those opposed to global warming can't really answer. In other words they poke holes in the global warming theory but I have to see anyone answer where the carbon dioxide goes so that it is not a problem, or show at least a way that the earth would counter the effects of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Water vapors is about all I've seen on that subject.

 

I see. Great point.

I'm about to get beat up over this but...

It seems to me there is a correlation between those that blast global warming and those that blast evolution. They are generally the same people. Not all, but generally. These people, have a distrust of science, maybe there's not a complete understanding of the scientific method or they found science boring while growing up, I don't know, but there does seem to me a correlation.

Which is why, I say, err on the side of caution as an argument. What's it really going to hurt if we got more environmentally conscious anyway?

 

how many are really in the business of weather.. if they aren't then I question the strength of their cosign.

keep in mind.. 1998 was the hottest year EVER.. so it stands to reason that comparing everything to 1998 is skewing the facts.

 

Please don't mistake what I'm about to say here. Making the earth a better and cleaner place is a most worthy goal I only question the priorty we are giving it in relation to all of our other problems at this point in time.

The Earth isn't going away anytime soon as compared to the very real fact that if we don't get our Money house in order, and quickly, we won't be around to worry about global warming, polar bears, wolves, or anything else for that matter.

It would seem to me the most pressing goal would be to become solvent first and then we could better tackle global warming, don't you think?

 

There has been slight cooling since 1998.

There was warming from 1970 - 1998 and there has been cooling since.

 

In my experience its not the same group at all. Evolution has a great deal of evidence to back it up and the counter is primarily faith based (ie. belief without evidence). Global warming is the opposite. There really is no getting around the fact that most of the dire global warming predictions were very wrong. Clearly the computer models were based on faulty assumptions. Despite that many people still believe without question. I think the best that can be said is that there is considerable evidence that the Earth has experienced many climactic changes over time and that evidence of our effect on it is inconclusive.

As for erring on the side of caution, which side is caution? I've seen science make things worse sometimes too. When Eugenics was the consensus scientific opinion we were sterilizing people to protect the human race. That was seen as erring on the side of caution as well.

Sure, it makes sense to limit pollution but that involves a balance. We could probably cut down on a lot of pollution by banning all cars but there would be negative affects on jobs and production. The line isn't between pro-pollution and anti-pollution but rather the debate is where to force/encourage change and what costs are acceptable.

 

Maybe you're right. It has been my experience though, that they are joined together, and even along party lines as well. That's not to say it is a definite, but I've certainly seen a trend at the very least.

Well, that isn't a particularly valid argument. Sure science has made mistakes, that doesn't mean all conclusions should be considered up in the air. For example, when we dump toxic waste into a lake, its bad for the lake.

Of course it takes a balance. Few would argue to get rid of all cars. Certainly none that I've seen on this forum anyway. So, you're essentially stating the obvious relative to your audience. Right now however, there's no balance at all, and the scale is tipped all the over to the other side.

 

The trend I've seen is that both creationist and global warming environmentalist have a high percentage of extremists among their numbers.

They shouldn't be followed on blind faith either. Eugenics was questioned less than global warming has been and it had fewer obvious errors.

Whenever somebody is on one side they think it's all tipped to the other side. IMO Kyoto and other agreements were all tipped too far to the environmentalist side.

 

I was trying to avoid just coming out and saying it, but very often conservatives, don't agree with global warming or think evolution happened. Not all conservatives, but ALMOST always are the people against these things, are conservative. (Not all crustaceans are crabs, but all crabs are crustaceans.)

Blind faith isn't accurate. Blind faith implies no data. Well to continue the example, we have very specific data that shows dumping 111 Trichloroethane into lakes kills all the wildlife and fauna of that lake and makes its water unusable. Its a fact and it doesn't need to be constantly questioned. Following your logic, there's no such thing as a fact.

Well, all our cars still run on gas, companies still pollute, LA is still covered in smog, etc.

 

IMO that's inaccurate. That kind of thinking is fueled by the media and the 2 - party system. When you talk to most people without using party rhetoric you find that people aren't that different. Most fall in the middle or are moderate, but the parties get defined by the extremists on both ends.

That's not the same as saying global warming is caused by man. That's been accepted on faith despite contradicting evidence and predictions that are repeatedly inaccurate. I see it as too similar to the religious nut saying the world will end tomorrow. After enough tomorrows pass, you'd think more people would question some of the assumptions those predictions were based on.

The pendulum swings refer to policy changes. We have things we need to fix but there's a cost to incorporating that change. I used the extreme of banning all cars to illustrate that extreme policy swings can cause undesirable damage. The same is true for less extreme measures. The question is where to draw the line between benefit and cost.

 

I've seen other explanations, one being that higher carbon levels lead to an increase in plant growth.