Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[Sweet Willy]

Ok so.... I take an empty glass and a pitcher of water. I show you how to fill the glass with water. After a couple hours of back and forth just asking you: "Do you see how I can fill this glass with water?" You keep asking me what I have against water and why I think water is bad. I don't think water is bad. I just want you to acknowledge that we can pour the glass full of water to drink. Lets not judge the water. Lets just concentrate on our ability to pour it into the glass....gotcha. very good.

Now.... is it possible that I could fill the glass with gasoline the same way?

"Duh.... what choo got against water? If youins hates water so bad why don't you move where thar ain't no water..."


Good night. You guys have argued hard enough for your ignorance to keep it at least one more day.

 

[westwall]

The simple reduction being this:

You can SEE that man is capable of this amazing feat of lighting up giant masses of the planet.

But you reject that the same people capable of this, could possibly effect anything else on this sort of scale?

This can only be done with light? Not with a poisonous gas or with heat or cold or fire or radiation or water or dust or smoke? We couldn't create anything else man made to have the scale of impact that lights have had on entire continents?

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

 

[Sweet Willy]

For someone who thinks they're so clever you really don't know much about history do you? Try looking up the Minoan civilization. They had an excellent plumbing system in their cities 6,000 years BCE. The Romans too had excellent sewer systems that in Rome are still in use. At its height Rome had a population higher then the current one. In antiquity. You see mankind is pretty clever. It's amazing that people such as yourself who think they are so smart, know so little about mans history.

Dude... why do you think they had to figure out how to move the waste? It was a problem of human impact in their cities. No different than New York.

We had to build waste systems here for the same reasons. Tossing it into the street was a problem. A man made problem. Even after that we've had to learn to clean it out of the water.

The fact that other civilizations recognized that humans have an impact on their environment changes the example how?

Trying to duck your statement about all of the sewage treatment being invented because of the impact of industrialisation? Here's the deal. Man progresses. The industrial revolution made it possible for man to elevate himself to the level he is. The Third World is the problem now. Why is it the enviro nuts want the whole world to be relegated back to the Third World?

Man will find out ways to make his life better. 100 years ago it took a minimum of five days to cross the country via train. Now we do it in hours. Why is it so bad for man to be able to do that?

You tell us. What is your point? You keep spouting off a bunch of factoids but you havn't said what you want to say. So just do it and get it over with. You're not educated enough to try and use the Socratic method on us.

Dude, you're so lost it's no use. I never said industrial impact caused sewage treatment to be invented.

You aren't honest enough to have a conversation with. You hear what you want to hear.

Light is not bad.

Juts try to ficus on that one fact for a day and see if that sinks in.

Light is not bad.

Light is not bad.

But we can produce a lot of it.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The simple reduction being this:

You can SEE that man is capable of this amazing feat of lighting up giant masses of the planet.

But you reject that the same people capable of this, could possibly effect anything else on this sort of scale?

This can only be done with light? Not with a poisonous gas or with heat or cold or fire or radiation or water or dust or smoke? We couldn't create anything else man made to have the scale of impact that lights have had on entire continents?

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

 

[daveman]

The simple reduction being this:

You can SEE that man is capable of this amazing feat of lighting up giant masses of the planet.

But you reject that the same people capable of this, could possibly effect anything else on this sort of scale?

Then I'd suggest moving to one of those darkened places you see on the map s0n!!!

You're going to be in the box for decades before fossil fuels go anywhere!!!

What is this inclination to think that I want to live in the dark? Why is it that because I ask you to acknowledge this picture you think i am against light? And no one even mentioned fossil fuels.

 

[westwall]

The simple reduction being this:

You can SEE that man is capable of this amazing feat of lighting up giant masses of the planet.

But you reject that the same people capable of this, could possibly effect anything else on this sort of scale?

This can only be done with light? Not with a poisonous gas or with heat or cold or fire or radiation or water or dust or smoke? We couldn't create anything else man made to have the scale of impact that lights have had on entire continents?

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

Of course. I've stated that several times in the past. Making it warmer however requires expenditures of energy we can only dream of.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Gentlemen, the Earth does not correct man made changes to the environment on any regular and observable scale. The natural condition of the Earth, absent man, in this picture is darkness. (I don't judge the goodness or badness of that condition. It just is). As you can see, man has the ability to far out pace the Earth's ability to adjust to man made conditions. Sure, hurricanes and storms take down power lines, things rust and corrode, lights burn out under the Earths wear and tear. But we build and replace faster than the Earth reclaims it's darkness. We are able to impose our will on the Earth and make it light, where the Earth would otherwise be dark.

The claim that man can only "locally" affect his environment is baloney. One picture shows us the cumulative affect. Light escapes into space also...but it's affect on Earth is quite visible on it's way out.

The claim that the Earth somehow balances man's actions is also debunked with one photo. The Earth can't tear down the lights as fast as we can put them up.

Now, again, lights are a good thing. I like lights. I think it's a heck of an accomplishment we have here to look at from space. But it also stands to demonstrate the capacity of man to make enormous changes to his environment on a global scale. To think this is only possible with light is naive or ignorant or just plain hard headed. This is all just political grudge matching against AGW. The simple fact for anyone to understand with half a brain is that all sorts of things are possible and claiming that it's impossible to cause significant environmental impact on a global scale is foolishness.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

Of course. I've stated that several times in the past. Making it warmer however requires expenditures of energy we can only dream of.

Yeah... there is only the sun to consider.

 

[Sweet Willy]

We can cause the planet to be cooled, we can create "environmental wastelands", we can light up entire continents.

But heating the planet would be impossible. If we did that, the Earth would just fix itself.

 

[HUGGY]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".


Here is a little segement from climateaudit...


"Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. Read More »"

Why, oh why, if the science is so solid would anybody need or want to hide it?

Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Climate Audit

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

 

[daveman]

Good night.

You can't even log off right.

 

[daveman]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

 

[HUGGY]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Americans like to get paid...scientists included.

 

[Cowman]

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

Of course. I've stated that several times in the past. Making it warmer however requires expenditures of energy we can only dream of.

 

[Cowman]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

 

[sparky]

GW is politicized so we don't have to deal with it......~S~

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands

A bit of double think here because Anthropogenic Global Warming is 99.44% politics.
It's all about power, money and control. Those who support AGW want it. Those who refuse to agree want to deny others from having it over them.

Let me ask you a question I just heard about Climate Change in general.

Do you believe that what man does to the environment is Natural, or Unnatural?

 

[Big Fitz]

The simple reduction being this:

You can SEE that man is capable of this amazing feat of lighting up giant masses of the planet.

But you reject that the same people capable of this, could possibly effect anything else on this sort of scale?

This can only be done with light? Not with a poisonous gas or with heat or cold or fire or radiation or water or dust or smoke? We couldn't create anything else man made to have the scale of impact that lights have had on entire continents?

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

Neither heat nor cool. He can poison the shit out of it and kill himself off. But that's not climate.

 

[westwall]

Gentlemen, the Earth does not correct man made changes to the environment on any regular and observable scale. The natural condition of the Earth, absent man, in this picture is darkness. (I don't judge the goodness or badness of that condition. It just is). As you can see, man has the ability to far out pace the Earth's ability to adjust to man made conditions. Sure, hurricanes and storms take down power lines, things rust and corrode, lights burn out under the Earths wear and tear. But we build and replace faster than the Earth reclaims it's darkness. We are able to impose our will on the Earth and make it light, where the Earth would otherwise be dark.

The claim that man can only "locally" affect his environment is baloney. One picture shows us the cumulative affect. Light escapes into space also...but it's affect on Earth is quite visible on it's way out.

The claim that the Earth somehow balances man's actions is also debunked with one photo. The Earth can't tear down the lights as fast as we can put them up.

Now, again, lights are a good thing. I like lights. I think it's a heck of an accomplishment we have here to look at from space. But it also stands to demonstrate the capacity of man to make enormous changes to his environment on a global scale. To think this is only possible with light is naive or ignorant or just plain hard headed. This is all just political grudge matching against AGW. The simple fact for anyone to understand with half a brain is that all sorts of things are possible and claiming that it's impossible to cause significant environmental impact on a global scale is foolishness.

Ok, what effect does all of that light have?

 

[westwall]

We can cause the planet to be cooled, we can create "environmental wastelands", we can light up entire continents.

But heating the planet would be impossible. If we did that, the Earth would just fix itself.

The Earth will fix itself no matter what we do. It may surprise you but most rocks that you look at have been at least seven other different types of rock. Either igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary. The nature of the Earth is change.