Conveniently
I’ve seen very little evidence that “global warming” is a threat. In fact, it seems that the converse is true … in recent years, rising atmospheric and oceanic temperatures (which are historically cyclical) have been causing a proportional increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We’re probably direct objects, not subjects, in the sentence of climate change.
Even so, it’s kinda fun to see these evangelical environmentalists and political lobbyists use their scare tactics to monger up fear. They’ve been unbelievable this year!
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 am EST
Wow, I am surprised to hear you take this position. The amount of peer reviewed science documenting the realities of global climate change from human activity is overwhelming. While dire predictions may be speculative, and surely some in the long run will prove to be false, the fact that human activity is drastically altering the climate worldwide is not really in dispute among the scientific community at this point.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 am EST
Uh huh. And April was the coldest month on record since 1911 .. here. In countries where people think they can play god, its not a wonder that they are feeling some heat.
Climate changes. It was changing long before people were able to burn coal or oil on a large scale. I wonder how many Global Warming Nuts have bothered to think about what caused the end of the Ice Ages. SUVs?
The sky is falling. Quick, stop people from flying airplanes and poking holes in the sky. Chicken Little needs some company.
David Burke needs to open his eyes. There are MANY people in the scientific community who dispute human causes of climate change.
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm EST
Ok, guys … let’s keep this from getting personal.
Human activity has always altered this world, including its climate. But there are many other things that change the climate too … and overexaggerrated and inaccurate public campaigns like “An Inconvnient Truth” are trying to turn a scientific dialogue into a fanatical religious movement.
In my opinion, these environmental “crazies” running around pointing their fingers are only turning people off to the real advantages of being environmentally-conscious … saving money and living a clean lifestyle!
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm EST
I’m not sure what you’ve read (I’m assuming you’ve seen all the information related to Al Gore’s movie?), but I wanted to pass on some links. I’ve tried to read a lot about this subject, and I’ve found the evidence highly persuasive. Books like “The Skeptical Environmentalist” make some good points, and there’s no doubt that some of the numbers floating around are exaggerated & unlikely worst-case scenarios. But despite any natural general warming trend, the changes we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution - a very very small length of time by geological standards - simply cannot be explained absent the influence of humans. There is debate about the extent of the damage and what we should do - and believe me, I understand the tension between balancing present crises with future concerns - but as far as I can see, only fringe elements are saying global warming isn’t a human issue. There are allegations of exaggeration in both directions, but as far as I can tell it’s a question of scope, not its existence.
I would be sincerely interested in hearing more about what you’ve read, especially anything about the historically cyclical nature of temps causing the CO2 rises.
I’m also passing on a rather random collection of links that came to mind based on the most recent events in the climate change dialogue (i.e., the NASA director’s comments). Two blogs I’ve found to be fairly balanced and objective ( i.e., as a lay person, they seem to question as much as they declare and aren’t solely about climate change) are Prometheus (through UC Boulder - the comments are often as interesting as the entries) and scienceblogs.com (which brings together entries from I think 40 different science blogs).
At the end of the 1990’s, the American Geophysical Union endorsed government action to address climate change. Some groups - CEI etc. - said this was the politicization of a previously-respected scientific organization. Others pointed out the historical track record of the organization, the nature of the evidence, and the further support this provided for the need to do something. A quick google search will turn up more about the organization and its recommendations.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm EST
Hoo, boy. I be a fringey.
Of course people affect their environment. The big question is, how much influence do humans have, keeping in perspective the fact that climate has changed in the past without any indication that people did it. Last I checked, humans had no input into solar activity or asteroid trajectory or changes in the planet’s magnetic flux.
One of the most interesting aspects of this whole political (and yes, it is political-religious, not merely scientific) brouhaha is that those who advocate speedy action to maintain some sort of staus quo in the environment are also the people who are so adamant about evolution outside the control of God. On one hand, they say change is random, inevitable, and is our destiny. On the other hand, they say it is predictable, capable of being thwarted, and the planet should be shaped according to their personal desires.
Me, I’m curious as to what the final shape of the change will be. Please don’t stop it, since I’m off on a grand adventure in human history.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 am EST
…evangelical environmentalists and political lobbyists…and every reputable client scientist on earth.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:01 am EST
very hard to refrain here… just wondering what the definition of “reputable” is. i’m sure nobody has ever done a survey to see how many so-called scientists are also committed to the theory of evolution, but in my small statistically insignificant mind i would bet there is a very high correlation. there was also a day once upon a time not so many millions of years ago when all the “reputable” scientists in the world thought it was FLAT.
anywho, the only global warming i am sure will happen one day will come from the ultimate controller of the climate, who created it in the first place. take a gander at Revelation 8:7 for some global warming even Algore won’t be able to fight.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am EST
I’d like to thank Kate, a great friend of mine, for the email dialogue we’ve been having since I made this post (I posted one of her emails above as “Anonymous”). As I first said, “I’ve seen very little evidence” … and she seems to be the only one who wants to try to show me some. I really respect that!
Here’s a tip from a layman. The token answer, “Experts all agree so if you don’t then you’re an idiot” doesn’t really help anyone understand anything, let alone believe it. If there is proof or convincing data, just share it and let it speak for itself. If you haven’t seen the evidence, maybe you shouldn’t say that it’s there or try to make your claims heavier by referring to anonymous “experts”.
And yes … I’m talking to Environmentalists and Christians!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm EST
Here you go
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
June 7th, 2007 at 6:43 am EST
I think in the end we will have some pretty good stories out of this generation, once some one gets to writing them down, especially once everything is in the open.
I personally would just advocate living cleaner for the sake of the small term effects and a maybe larger longer term. Having more efficient cars and using reusables, recycling, planting trees, those all are just the small things I like to do so my life is better, not just a potential betterment.
Just on my own I’ve seen weather changes that are abnormal, and who knows? But if it becomes irrevocable, and the evidence, irrefutable, then I will do everything in my power to try to save the planet.
ALTHOUGH…it may get biblical. In which case I’ll whip out my handy guide to life and start praying…
June 7th, 2007 at 6:45 am EST
also…on the NASA link…
NASA seems to have been driven by the desire to continue lucrative payments to the contractors behind manned spaceflight (mainly Boeing and Lockheed Martin) while maintaining staff levels in the congressional districts (mainly in Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Texas) that are home to huge centers focused on manned missions
wait…we are a huge center for manned mission? SWEET!
I guess Ohio has more suprises than its little heartshaped shell shows.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:19 am EST
Check out this article by the President of the Czech Republic. Its nice to find a politician who cares less about “political correctness” than he does about plain old “correctness,” its just too bad he isn’t an American politician…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 am EST
that’s not the only thing that’s unbelievable.