Global Warming

[naut]

For a bit of science content. Which is the hottest planet in the Solar System?

Venus at 480ºC!

I think it's happening, I don't know if it's as bad as it's made out to be. But, if it is then I'm fine with future generations/scientists/etc looking back at me and saying "I told you so".

[Viking]

What ended the last Great Ice age? Cavemen farts? How did the Romans grow grapes in Britain? We thing too highly of ourselves to think we can have such an effect on nature. Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...
My favorite Bull Sh** episode (warning foul language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE

Does the IPCC sell books, also?

I don't believe this because humans still don't know everything.

And perphaps they never will. It's not a relevant argument, nor is the comparison relevant.

[Kralizec]

It's happening, surely. But it's been warmer in the past. I accept that CO2 gasses have some influence but I think people are to quick to accept that it's the major cause behind the current warming and even if it were it seems a stretch that fossil fuels will last long enough to destroy civilization as we know it.
I voted #4.

[LittleGrizzly]

Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...

The faked lunar landings, Bush knocked down the towers... and the now the newest theory in our latest line of Conspiracy Theorys we have the evnviro commie conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theorys, there for all your neanderthal needs, hate something ? very little evidence to support your theory ? then why not start a conspiracy theory today! nothing is too wacky! even willing to accept that completely opposed ideaologys are in fact linked! start your socailism is facism ct today and watch as friends and family admire your twisting of the facts..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Global warming is happening at the moment, that's fact. Whether it was caused by us, is natural, or is even a problem is where the debate begins.

[Xiahou]

Global warming is happening at the moment, that's fact. Whether it was caused by us, is natural, or is even a problem is where the debate begins.

It's never even that cut and dry- most measurements show that "global" temperatures have dropped from 2007-2008. Over the last 30yrs, there has been a warming trend, but I think the last ten years have more or less leveled off with, as I've said, a decrease over the last year. Does that mean we're going to experience global cooling now? Who knows.

I think we can have a small impact on climate, and it can be more pronounced locally (heat islands, ect). However, our climate has varied wildly in the past and there's no reason to think that it won't continue to do so- I think it'd be pretty much impossible for us to override natural variations even if we wanted to.

Man-made global warming alarmism starts from the false premise that the climate is static, and therefore any change is not natural and must, by extension be caused by man. That's nonsense.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's never even that cut and dry- most measurements show that "global" temperatures have dropped from 2007-2008. Over the last 30yrs, there has been a warming trend, but I think the last ten years have more or less leveled off with, as I've said, a decrease over the last year. Does that mean we're going to experience global cooling now? Who knows.

There isn't supposed to be any rise in temperatures for the next ten years. I voted for option four, but I'm leaning a little towards option five - global warming does seem to be in a large part natural.

[Viking]

Man-made global warming alarmism starts from the false premise that the climate is static, and therefore any change is not natural and must, by extension be caused by man. That's nonsense.

Quite the opposite; it takes the stance that the climate is dynamic, and might be affected by man, even.

[JR-]

Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...

overstated, but essentially i agree.

[PBI]

Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrong, science or no science. Political purity is far more important than reality anyway.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Meh, come the winter solstice of 2012 we're all goners anyway.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dang Mayas...buncha smarty pants math nerds...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrong, science or no science. Political purity is far more important than reality anyway.

I don't support it based on politics at all. I've grown up mostly in the country, and I have a great love for nature, especially winter. I just don't believe global warming is much more than a temperature fluctuation - quite possibly occuring naturally.

University of Guelph

[Xiahou]

Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrong

Usually a safe bet.

[LittleGrizzly]

Usually a safe bet.

you mean like iraq ? ...... ohh no wait... that was the right.... how about gauntanamo ? ...... ohh no wait... right again....

[CountArach]

you mean like iraq ? ...... ohh no wait... that was the right.... how about gauntanamo ? ...... ohh no wait... right again....

Xiahou supports both to the best of my knowledge... I was struggling to think of an issue where he agrees with the left, but I can't.

[LittleGrizzly]

I was pretty sure even the most ardent right winger realised the folly off iraq, gauntanamo i guessed he might support but even someone who supports the camp has to admit its been a disaster in several ways even if the original idea was ok.

[CountArach]

I was pretty sure even the most ardent right winger realised the folly off iraq, gauntanamo i guessed he might support but even someone who supports the camp has to admit its been a disaster in several ways even if the original idea was ok.

You overestimate the right...

[rory_20_uk]

In both extremes, failure of a policy is always evidence that it was not taken far enough - more needed to be in guantanamo for longer and the lack of evidence shows that the terrorists are worse than we thought!

Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.

You can explain away anything with this "logic" / "deductive reasoning"

[LittleGrizzly]

Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.

Iraq was possibly the worst move we could have made, firstly with the conditions imposed on them and foriegn forces nearby they where a threat to no one, except perhaps thier own people, secondly if fundamentalist islam really is the object of the war on terror going for perhaps one of the more secular states (iraq pre invasion) is pure stupidity.

Iraq war was done to get rid of saddam, free up iraqs oil reserves, secure contracts for domestic companies such as oil related or rebuilding and finally to setup a democracy. The last one is perhaps the only valid reason but it was thrown in as little more than an afterthought.

If we had not commited ourselves to Iraq we would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran, Musharref would not have been in such a bad position in pakistan, perhaps he could have lasted longer, we would be in a better position in this current conflict with georgia and russia, and we wouldn't have driven a generation of young muslims to the recruiters

I have just wrote all this and now all of a sudden im getting a strong feeling you were being sarcastic.... im sure you were against iraq war, and your gauntanamo reasoning is suspect at best...

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.

Iraq was possibly the worst move we could have made, firstly with the conditions imposed on them and foriegn forces nearby they where a threat to no one, except perhaps thier own people, secondly if fundamentalist islam really is the object of the war on terror going for perhaps one of the more secular states (iraq pre invasion) is pure stupidity.

Iraq war was done to get rid of saddam, free up iraqs oil reserves, secure contracts for domestic companies such as oil related or rebuilding and finally to setup a democracy. The last one is perhaps the only valid reason but it was thrown in as little more than an afterthought.

If we had not commited ourselves to Iraq we would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran, Musharref would not have been in such a bad position in pakistan, perhaps he could have lasted longer, we would be in a better position in this current conflict with georgia and russia, and we wouldn't have driven a generation of young muslims to the recruiters

I have just wrote all this and now all of a sudden im getting a strong feeling you were being sarcastic.... im sure you were against iraq war, and your gauntanamo reasoning is suspect at best...

Yup, I was playing Devil's Advocate.

I think that Guantanamo managed to alienate entire countries and cultures whilst coming up with nothing. That it was created to sidestep laws shows that some are prepared to become the enemy to try to beat them.

Iraq? There was a chance after 1990's war to go in and do some good. This was missed for lack of stomach. To then go in with documents that the ink had failed to dry on with no plans for what happens afterwards was again a massive mess.

The VAST sums of money could have been used to create entire agencies to combat terrorism as opposed to trashing a coutry that hated militant Islam as much as we did. Realpolitik would be to ally with Saddam, offering help if he curbed the worst of his excesses.

No we are hamstrung over 2 conflicts. One is against the people and culture of the area as much as anything else, the other is allowing countries such as Syria and Iran to bleed the West dry with minimum fuss; in the meantime as you pointed out we are not able to do anything else on the world stage, in areas that are of far more direct concern.

[JR-]

on the other hand every nut-case fruitloop in the middle-east with an urge to pop off a few rounds at the great/little satan in the name of jihad went to iraq instead of america or the UK.

it would take a cynical mind to believe that we could find a convenient country to turn into a charnel house to process two decades worth of jihadists trained and experienced in guerrilla war and terrorism and sprinkled forgotten around the world.............. but maybe i am such a cynic. in which case things are going jolly well in iraq, wouldn't you agree?

[rory_20_uk]

Whilst I think that this cull is a good thing, there's an endless supply of them, and the percentage killed is probably about the same if not less than those that decide to go Jihad because of this modern day crusade; and since some natives in countries such as the UK get the same idea the problem is arguably worse.

Let's not forget that the Iran-Iraq war polished off something like 1 million of 'em. So far even with America's trigger happiness we've not got anywhere close.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think its quite working like that, for one does anyone realise what a horrible stratergy that is ?

Imagine your country be used as some kind of slaughtering ground for some other countries enemys.

Secondly i think we started with a far smaller pool of extremists, sure some of the original pool have been killed, and a load of the new terrorists we've created are dead now too, but the problem is what we are now left with is a much bigger pool of exremists, and the possibility if we don't manage to stabilise Iraq that the place will become something like Afghanastan before we arrived, a breeding ground for terrorism...

[JR-]

but there are two decades worth, are we really radicalising new people or just forcing the old ones out of the woodwork?

and what this really boils down to is the crushing of an ideoolgy, that once crushed will no longer be attractive to the rebels-in-need-of-a-cause? we plant the wests flag in iraq and say; "bring it on!" we liquidate the nutters and turn iraq into a western style democracy, in view of the whole world........

difficult to believe in radical islamism as a valid credo after that, huh?

p.s. i am positing this as the thought processes of some strategists buried in Whitehall or the Pentagon.

[ajaxfetish]

and what this really boils down to is the crushing of an ideoolgy, that once crushed will no longer be attractive to the rebels-in-need-of-a-cause? we plant the wests flag in iraq and say; "bring it on!" we liquidate the nutters and turn iraq into a western style democracy, in view of the whole world........

difficult to believe in radical islamism as a valid credo after that, huh?

Let me just say that that sounds incredibly optimistic. Also, how'd we get off on discussing the Iraq war here? Isn't global warming a divisive enough topic to keep its own thread going?

Ajax

[LittleGrizzly]

but there are two decades worth, are we really radicalising new people or just forcing the old ones out of the woodwork?

I suppose this depends on two things, How much of the violence in Iraq is done by Iraqis, as im fairly sure there was no significant iraqi portion of AQ, secondly how much of the foriegn contingent in Iraq were inspired by the war itself, i don't think that anyone can seriously suggest that all the suicide bombers we've had in Iraq were on thier way to the west until the iraq war.

[Viking]

Lets get back on topic.

[m52nickerson]

I have a lot of respect for most on these boards...........but I'm still going to go with the scientist. I think they know just a little bit more (read huge amount) then any of us here.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have a lot of respect for most on these boards...........but I'm still going to go with the scientist. I think they know just a little bit more (read huge amount) then any of us here.

University of Guelph

MIT Professor

Some articles from PhD's here.

Vast majority of engineers and earth scientists in survey disagree on consensus

Consensus?

I agree that some scientists know more than us. I would also say that not only does alarmism suppress alternate beliefs, but that some people are seeking a conclusion that they already have in mind, and not from an impartial standpoint.

[rory_20_uk]

I've read PhDs that by undertaking different experiments have come to conclusions diametrically opposite each other.

Either there is a massive amount of bias, or small studies can't be relied on.