The best argument against global warming

[SpidermanTuba]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

 

[oreo]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

And to let you know--SCIENCE has never been PERFECT--and so often stead-fast conclusions--based on a lot of CONJECTURE--is often PROVEN wrong several years later. Especially when we have been finding that scientists and others have buried other scientific evidence contrary to their theories--LOL.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

 

[oreo]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

Well what really bothers me about all this scientific evidence---

Maybe you can explain it. We know for a fact that the northern hemisphere went through an ice age--with very few humans inhabiting this planet.

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

We also know during the dinasor age--that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.

These are things we actually know from the past. This is the only thing science can get a grip upon--because it actually happened. Now they are using "junk" science and a lot of conjecture to give us the future--of which science HAS NEVER been good at.

When I see palm trees going in the artic regions around the world--then maybe I'll buy this B.S. that simply by exhaling air that we are creating global warming.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

Well what really bothers me about all this scientific evidence---

Maybe you can explain it. We know for a fact that the northern hemisphere went through an ice age--with very few humans inhabiting this planet.

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

We also know during the dinasor age--that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.

These are things we actually know from the past. This is the only thing science can get a grip upon--because it actually happened. Now they are using "junk" science and a lot of conjecture to give us the future--of which science HAS NEVER been good at.

When I see palm trees going in the artic regions around the world--then maybe I'll buy this B.S. that simply by exhaling air that we are creating global warming.

Wow. You could have just said "No, I have no scientific arguments to make."

 

[Si modo]

Ah ba-leeve! Ah ba-leeve!

 

[Sodafin]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

it's always great to see someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever insist all of the scientists in the world have got it wrong because he has a gut feeling.

Let me see - who should I believe on this one - Oreo or Stephen Hawking?

 

[Si modo]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

it's always great to see someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever insist all of the scientists in the world have got it wrong because he has a gut feeling.

Let me see - who should I believe on this one - Oreo or Stephen Hawking?

All the scientists in the world?

 

[Sodafin]

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

 

[Si modo]

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

[Emphasis added] And?

 

[Sodafin]

Si modo -

Interesting debate requires a minimum level of integrity, subject knowledge and literacy.

You are below this level on all three counts.

 

[Avatar4321]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

The fact that the tempature's been going down since 1998 isnt scientific enough?

Or maybe the fact that no matter what happens, it's somehow evidence that global warming exists. If it doesnt snow much, it's "evidence" for global warming. If it snows alot, it's "evidence" for global warming. The temp goes up: Global warming. The temp goes down: Global warming. More hurricanes: Global warming. Less hurricanes: Global warming. The warming of the planet is going to cause the next Ice age.

Oh and the magical cure for global warming is *gasp* socialism! What an amazing coincidence that the laws and regulations people rejected as socialism are the exact same laws and regulations we need to "stop" global warming.

Seriously, people aren't stupid. There is more science in phrenology then there is in global warming. And that's not much at all.

Maybe you should actually provide evidence for Global warming. You can start by providing scientific evidence demonstrating what tempature the earth is supposed to be. Which wont be easy since the earth has been shifting tempatures for billions of years.

But as you've already convinced yourself that global warming is science and deluded yourself into thinking that science is never wrong, I doubt you'll ever even consider that. But if global warming is so scientific, you wouldnt have to make up evidence.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Si modo -

Interesting debate requires a minimum level of integrity, subject knowledge and literacy.

You are below this level on all three counts.

It's no wonder you get neged.. your insolent and lack respect.. some would say an asshole.

 

[Avatar4321]

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

And more carbon dioxide means more plant life which converts that carbon into oxygen so we can breath. It's an amazing thing called the circle of life.

You do realize we breath out carbon don't you? The logical conclusion of the global warming wackos is mass murder.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

The fact that the tempature's been going down since 1998 isnt scientific enough?

That's where I stopped reading.

 

[JW Frogen]

Ah ba-leeve! Ah ba-leeve!

Do I hear an amen?

 

[Sheldon]

Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn't one.

Nice snark. This should be fun.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

Tiny errors? The Climate-gate emails were a deliberate cover up of contrary data. The Himalayan miscalculation was so blatantly evident that it's incredibly difficult to assert nobody along the chain didn't noticed 2300 is, in fact, not 2030. Granted, these incidents don't dismantle the entire science behind the general theory, but it's intellectually dishonest to maintain these are "tiny errors", instead of gross abuses of the scientific method for policy purposes. Not to mention Pachuari's potential conflict of interests.

The author uses a cheap tactic; diminish the faults of "his" side, while exaggerating and generalizing the opinions of the "other" side. So far, he's coming across as a hack.

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

Nitpick, because it bothers me: the climate is constantly changing, so the phrase "climate is changing" is redundant.

The author mischaracterizes the debate by using the term "deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change", because there are those who won't deny the "humans causing" part but will contest the "unprecedented" part.

So he's setting up a false dichotomy; there's the "accepters" and the "deniers". What about the skeptics, those who will concede that humans effect the climate but are unsure that the level of effect warrants a readjustment of the global economy?

The debate in the climate science community is about the level of human effect. The author skews the actual debate, and instead goes after the easy target in an attempt to strengthen his own contention, probably because the skeptical arguments would challenge his position more than those of the deniers who he feels comfortable to attack.

Here is the second best argument used by deniers against global warming, (but edited for children) from a message received by a colleague of mine:

"Mr. xxx, this is John Q. Public out here. Perhaps you don't understand there's no such thing as man-made global warming. I don't care if you call it f!@%$#%@ing climate change, I don't f!@%$#%@ing care what you call it. The same thing you communists tried in the 1970s. I've got a f!@%$#%@ing 75 articles from Newsweek Magazine stating we were making the earth freeze to death and we would have to melt the f!@%$#%@ing ice caps to save the earth. You, sir, and your colleagues, are progressive communists attempting to destroy America...Your f!@%$#%@ing agenda-driven, money-f!@%$#%@ing grabbing paws and understand there's no such thing as global warming, you f!@%$#%@ing idiot and your f!@%$#%@ing colleagues."

Nice, eh? Unfortunately, lots of climate scientists get emails and other messages like this. Note the careful reasoning? The persuasive and logical nature of the debate? The reference to the best scientific evidence from 1970 Newsweek magazines? Very compelling arguments, yes?

Yeah, because that's a fair representation of all those who don't yet completely accept that the scientific community is in consensus of fast-paced, human-caused effects on the climate, and whether these effects are categorically negative. He finds the worst of the worst to make an easy target with which to paint the "other side", then caps it off with some Level 1 Snark. If you're gonna do it, Gleik, then go all the way.

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning.

Which is what all the non-hack climate scientists are doing. The general theory of global warming is accepted, much like evolution, but the nuances are what is being debated--and it's those nuances that will, or should, drive policy.

Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Well, it takes two to fight in a bar. There are ideologues on both sides of this issue who will attempt to reap "victory" by painting the others as either ignorant or anti-capitalists, neither of which may be far from reality. But meanwhile, the actual scientists and those on the fence will look at the data and continue to debate that data. And yet, while the author asserts that the debate has descend to a "bar fight", he, in this very article, is tossing sloppy left hooks, too.

He goes after the easy target--like going after a creationist, instead of an evolutionist who contests the rate of bi-pedal progression--but makes no concession that there are valid, skeptical arguments.

Seriously, all it would've take was one-paragraph admission of this, and I would've been fine; I wouldn't even have responded. But by that omission, he's led me to believe he only wants to engage in drawing a line in the debate between accepters and deniers, thereby squeezing out the skeptics and/or lumping us in with the deniers. It's unfair to the discussion, a debating cheap-trick, and just generally lame.

Shitty and pointless OpEd, borderline puff piece.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So how did this planet warm up--with very few humans inhabiting it? Do any of your scientists friends have an answer for that or was it simply natural "climate change?"

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

And more carbon dioxide means more plant life which converts that carbon into oxygen so we can breath. It's an amazing thing called the circle of life.

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't work when you are clearing vegetation faster than its growing.

You do realize we breath out carbon don't you? The logical conclusion of the global warming wackos is mass murder.

Wow. You don't understand math very well, do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Climate-gate emails were a deliberate cover up of contrary data.

Why? Because global warming deniers say so? Well if they say so then it must be true.

 

[Sodafin]

Maybe you should actually provide evidence for Global warming. You can start by providing scientific evidence demonstrating what tempature the earth is supposed to be. Which wont be easy since the earth has been shifting tempatures for billions of years.

.

Well, we know for a simple and undisputed fact that.

- 95% of all glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with the pace of retrreat having sped up since 1950

- that ocean PH levels are changing

- that arctic sea ice is thinning every year

- that the western antarctic ice shelf is collapsing

- that global mean temperatures are rising

- that ocean levels are rising

- that countries like spain and australia are experiencing unprecedented drought.

How would you explain these factors?

Lumpy -

I treat every serious poster with respect. I don't think those that limit themselves to one liners, abuse and off-topic attacks warrant the same treatment.