DE: 100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural

[skinfan133]

Nope. Your comprehension is just really, really bad.

both sources are just really, really, bad.

I'm so ****ing tired of spin

[Larry]

Don't we have a duty to let the earth change its climate and we either adapt and survive or don't and die out giving rise to a newer species?

Oh, great, another example of the "well, it's natural for things to change, therefore half a billion tons a year of pollution is natural" "reasoning".

But on a more broad level . . .

If there were a bunch of people running around announcing that we must immediately prevent a natural change from occurring, then this would not only be a valid and relevant point, but I'd be agreeing with you.

Unfortunately, the topic of discussion is "should Man not only continue dumping half a billion tons of pollution a year into the environment, but continue accelerating the rate at which he's doing it?"

Which makes an appeal to "shouldn't we just leave Nature alone" really hypocritical, don't you think?

[PeterMP]

You mean the same New Scientist whose former editor said this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

It's quite funny how angry you get when I post something. It's almost as funny as your accusations of political hackery. Hypocrisy, thy name is Predicto.

I found this doozy in your quoted text by throwing a dart at my monitor blindfolded.

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared with most of the Earth's history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

And when CO2 levels were higher there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 metres higher. Plus, the sun was cooler in the past.

So were sea levels 70 metres [brit sic] higher before or after the invention of the SUV?

:thumbsup:

And "plus the sun was cooler"?? This was the rebuttal? This "rebuttal" only helps confirm the notion that climate change is indeed natural.

Let's see, CO2 levels higher before industrial man? Check! Sun has drastic impact on Earth's temperature? Check!

I should've predicted your predictable attacks on OPs as well.

:laugh:

Can I seriously get you to answer a question? Which of the follwing don't you believe?

1. That we are increasing the level of CO2 in a signficant manner.

2. That CO2 is a "green house gas".

3. That increases in "green house gas" levels will cause an increase in the temperature.

[Larry]

Nope. Your comprehension is just really, really bad.

Nope. My comprehension is just fine.

I comprehended hypocrisy. I pointed it out. Even you got it.

[sacase]

Why?

Over population is directly related to the resources that the population requires. A larger population that requries fewer resources actually causes fewer problems than a smaller one that causes more.

Things related to resource use, like land use issues, are a major concern that lot's of people talk about.

You could argue that the earth's climate is meant to change. Keeping the climate the same would essentially be man made climate change as we are preventing the climate from changing naturally, which would naturally give rise to other species. How do we know what the earth's climate is supposed to be like and when and how it is supposed to change? Hell, climate change could easily be a method the planet uses to control certain species. How many species have actually survived in their original state during periods of climate change?

What I am specifically referring to is overpopulation and how much of a population this planet can comfortably support. People like to talk around that and think that our populations can continue to expand exponetially. We don't have any natural predators any more. Disease doesn't control our population anymore and famine is not going to happen on a global scale.

You're referring to the OP, right?

No Predicto's article.

[PeterMP]

it hasn't happened yet. That's also active, not passive action. I'm talking about unintentional destruction. We absolutely have the capacity to willingly destroy the planet. roughly 70 times over actually including the moon. not the surface, the whole goddam thing. Trust me, I take this into account for what I said, perhaps I should have been clear that I meant passive actions.

If I tell you doing X will cause Y, and you go ahead and continue to do X, wouldn't it be safe to assume that you intentionally did X and intentionally caused Y?

What are your thoughts about ozone depletion and CFCs?

[skinfan133]

If I tell you doing X will cause Y, and you go ahead and continue to do X, wouldn't it be safe to assume that you intentionally did X and intentionally caused Y?

What are your thoughts about ozone depletion and CFCs?

it's not quite as simple as X's and Y's, but based purely on your suggested model, of course. any fool can see that you'd be responsible for y under your model. The problem is, that model is completely insufficient to explain the phenomenon. I really and honestly think global warming is a natural phenomenon. I really and honestly think it is a major problem that is being under adressed. It is also arrogant of us to think we can do something to stop it, therefore energy is best spent dealing with the problem as is instead of the pipe dream of preventing it (regardless of natural or man-made, the chances of successfully stopping and reversing it are very slim. the chances of saving lives by preparing are much higher). Approaching this issue from a realist perspective will save lives. approaching it from a constructivist or liberal (not in the political spectrum sense) perspective will only divert resources and attention from where they can be best used.

I think our environmental focus is off base with CO2 when we should be reducing things that are known to be toxic to humans, the environment, and so forth. Nobody gives two ****s about high fructose corn syrup and the consequences that it entails on multiple levels, yet I believe it is a real and major threat to our species on multiple levels. But that is beside the point.

I really couldn't give you an unbiased opinion on ozone depletion and CFCs since those were issues before my time politically speaking. They have not been issues much recently, so it would be imprudent of me to spout off something and have you pick it a part, making me look like a fool

[PeterMP]

You could argue that the earth's climate is meant to change.

You could argue that your house doesn't belong where it does because some plants should be living there (unless of course you live in a desert, at which point in time the water you are getting shouldn't be there, or your house should be under water).

Maybe we should tear down your house?

What I am specifically referring to is overpopulation and how much of a population this planet can comfortably support. People like to talk around that and think that our populations can continue to expand exponetially. We don't have any natural predators any more. Disease doesn't control our population anymore and famine is not going to happen on a global scale.

The amount of population the planent can support is completely based on the resources that population requires.

[alexey]

Wow just found a great video

[Renegade7]

Climate change is natural. Extinction is natural. Not all species are meant to carry on forever in the same way. Eventually they will die out. We are not destroying the planet, at worst we are destroying our enviroment. The planet will be here long after we are gone, not matter what we do to it. Life will continue in one form or another.

Can we keep the earth's climate like it is now? Isn't that climate change? Or is that just acceptable climate change. Don't we have a duty to let the earth change its climate and we either adapt and survive or don't and die out giving rise to a newer species? I would argue that human overpopulation is having a more drastic affect on the enviroment than CO2, but yet no one wants to talk about human overpopulation...I wonder why?

You're playing semantics, sacase, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. You knew exactly what I meant by destroying the planet. If this is the only block of rock that we know for a fact supports life, it being a toxic dump and devoid of life would in my mind, and many others, make it destroyed.

It is not natural for entire species of whale, shark, bear, wolf, and other animals to go extinct or to the brink of for us to make sushi and fur coats out of. We're tearing down entire rainforests which is destroying entire ecosystems and in turn causing the extinction of species we haven't even discovered yet. Not to mention, killing of trees limits the amount of C02 to oxygen recycling nearly ever species on the planet relies on for survival. You know the Chesepeak Bay used to be crystal clear? Look at it now.

You're right that we as a species need to learn how to better co-exist with the planet as opposed to tearing it apart for the way we like it. And we're going to have to figure out how best to do that no matter how many people live on this planet. But it's not just overpopulation or just CO2; it's a mindset that involves a business owner having his company pour toxic crap into a river and telling himself it'll have little to no effect on him at all. It may not be his problem, but it will be our kids' problem and their kids' problem as well.

It has to stop.

[PeterMP]

it's not quite as simple as X's and Y's, but based purely on your suggested model, of course. any fool can see that you'd be responsible for y under your model. The problem is, that model is completely insufficient to explain the phenomenon.

Why?

I really and honestly think global warming is a natural phenomenon. I really and honestly think it is a major problem that is being under adressed. It is also arrogant of us to think we can do something to stop it, therefore energy is best spent dealing with the problem as is instead of the pipe dream of preventing it (regardless of natural or man-made, the chances of successfully stopping and reversing it are very slim. the chances of saving lives by preparing are much higher). Approaching this issue from a realist perspective will save lives. approaching it from a constructivist or liberal (not in the political spectrum sense) perspective will only divert resources and attention from where they can be best used.

ONLY if you assume that the vast majority of the scientists that work in the field are wrong.

I think our environmental focus is off base with CO2 when we should be reducing things that are known to be toxic to humans, the environment, and so forth. Nobody gives two ****s about high fructose corn syrup and the consequences that it entails on multiple levels, yet I believe it is a real and major threat to our species on multiple levels. But that is beside the point.

Well, I don't know how HFCS is a major threat to the species when it is possible to avoid them completely if you desire (vs. I can't get away from your increased CO2 levels), but there are also LOT'S of people considered bout HFCS.

I really couldn't give you an unbiased opinion on ozone depletion and CFCs since those were issues before my time politically speaking. They have not been issues much recently, so it would be imprudent of me to spout off something and have you pick it a part, making me look like a fool

You should have thought about that before stating:

"How can we be so arrogant to believe we can so profoundly affect creation in such a short time?"

Without an ozone layer life as we know it on the surface of the Earth would have been destroyed. If the above statement is one of the major reasons you don't believe in green house gas affects, then I'd suggest you read it up on it. There are wikipedia entries that would even be good places to start.

[Toe Jam]

[hokie4redskins]

Can I seriously get you to answer a question? Which of the follwing don't you believe?

1. That we are increasing the level of CO2 in a signficant manner. Don't think it is significant enough to cause all the gloom and doom scenarios or justify the mass hysteria.

2. That CO2 is a "green house gas" emitted naturally by respirating plant life and other natural causes that would make anthro-output pale in comparison.

3. That increases in "green house gas" levels will cause an increase in the temperature as it has done millions of times before over billions of years well before industrial man set foot on this Earth.

If the age of Earth was one 24-hour day, industrial man has been here for maybe 1/3000th of a second. To say we'd have that much impact is ridiculous. Climate change has been much more drastic and CO2 much more spewed before we even set foot on this planet.

What is clear to me is the collusion and scare tactics used to manipulate data in some pathetic effort to extort tax dollars from hard working people. The end result of this faux hysteria is more government control by incompetent bureacrats or worse yet, tyrannical regimes.

This will be the end result of this hysteria, not some immeasurable and unproven attempts to "save the planet." Watching the high comedy that is Cophenhagen only confirms this.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is there a driving force behind the "conspiracy?" Is someone profitting off stopping global warming, whether financially or otherwise?

I honestly don't understand what the motivation is to "make this stuff up."

[skinfan133]

Why?

no it is your model. you explain why it is sufficient to prove your point. it is not on me to do your explaining. "why" is a cop-out. I'd be happy to respond to why it is too simple however. you are using two causal variables to explain a phenomenon that incorporates hundreds if not thousands of separate variables. a third grader could see why such a simple model is insufficient.

ONLY if you assume that the vast majority of the scientists that work in the field are wrong.

you are absolutely 100% missing my point. the cause is not important.

who the **** cares who's right or wrong if we are all dead? I contend that only a practical realist approach to this problem will save lives. what is your solution? and FYI I don't have one.

Well, I don't know how HFCS is a major threat to the species when it is possible to avoid them completely if you desire (vs. I can't get away from your increased CO2 levels), but there are also LOT'S of people considered bout HFCS.

ok bad example, but your missing my point. there are other, more immediate and real and preventable threats to the environment that need to be taken care of as well.

You should have thought about that before stating:

"How can we be so arrogant to believe we can so profoundly affect creation in such a short time?"

Without an ozone layer life as we know it on the surface of the Earth would have been destroyed. If the above statement is one of the major reasons you don't believe in green house gas affects, then I'd suggest you read it up on it. There are wikipedia entries that would even be good places to start.

you have got to be kidding me. this is my argument. it is sailing over your head.

[PeterMP]

If the age of Earth was one 24-hour day, industrial man has been here for maybe 1/3000th of a second. To say we'd have that much impact is ridiculous. Climate change has been much more drastic and CO2 much more spewed before we even set foot on this planet.

What is clear to me is the collusion and scare tactics used to manipulate data in some pathetic effort to extort tax dollars from hard working people. The end result of this faux hysteria is more government control by incompetent bureacrats or worse yet, tyrannical regimes.

This will be the end result of this hysteria, not some immeasurable and unproven attempts to "save the planet." Watching the high comedy that is Cophenhagen only confirms this.

1. Have you heard of nuclear winter? CFCs and the ozone hole?

2. Yes CO2 has been spewed out, but it has been taken and converted into other things too, including fossil fuels, that removed it from the atmosphere. We are simultaneously digging up those old fossil fuels and releasing the CO2 AND removing sources that remove it from the atmosphere.

Is there any real reason why with that combination we can't achieve much higher CO2 levels, as compared to what nature has achieved to on its own (think about that for a second before you answer. You dig up old carbon sources convert them into CO2 AND decrease the sinks for CO2 what CO2 level are you going to end up with (how warm was it when the dinosaurs were alive?))?

Generally, you seem to disagree with this work:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6533/pdf/375666a0.pdf

Can you tell me why you think they are wrong?

And yes, if we do increase CO2 levels, we will possibly obtain a state that has been achieved in the history of the world, but that state included conditions in which many of the cities on both the west and east cost of the US would be under water.

[The Evil Genius]

I built a barn to withstand all the wind forces known to man. I then installed a huge high powered fan outside, aimed directly at the barn. I turned the fan on, the barn fell down.

What caused it to fall down?

The naturally occurring winds?

The high powered fan?

Or both?

[skinfan133]

Peter, look this was my point:

- I do not believe man is causing climate change, I believe it is a natural phenomenon.

-I believe it is a problem that should be addressed more seriously from a realist perspective before it is too late.

I was simply responding to the fact that I was talking about passive rather than active attempts to destroy the world when I said that man cannot have such a profound affect on the earth's biosphere. apparently that did not satisfy you.

[Larry]

you have got to be kidding me. this is my argument. it is sailing over your head.

Your argument appears to be "nothing Man does can possibly negatively impact the environment, because if you take the amount of pollution that Man is producing and average it over a Billion years, then it's not so bad."

[alexey]

Peter, look this was my point:

- I do not believe man is causing climate change, I believe it is a natural phenomenon.

-I believe it is a problem that should be addressed more seriously from a realist perspective before it is too late.

I was simply responding to the fact that I was talking about passive rather than active attempts to destroy the world when I said that man cannot have such a profound affect on the earth's biosphere. apparently that did not satisfy you.

Please watch these videos:

[Burgold]

If the age of Earth was one 24-hour day, industrial man has been here for maybe 1/3000th of a second.

I've never bought this argument. I once saw a dog jump out of the flat bed of a truck in moving traffic. It was struck and died. My experience with that animal lasted only seconds, but it has had a profound impact on my life.

Things can easily happen in an instant, especially an instant as long as a hundred years. Now, if you are saying that the Earth could eventually undo the damage mankind has done to it I'll buy that, but the idea that we can't damage it is preposterous. We have created deserts. We have caused extinctions. We have made waterways that nourished the land and slaked the thirst of man and beast for milenia poison. Everywhere you look, man has had a potent effect on the landscape, air, and water. Look how powerful and longlasting the effects of one oilspill is to a natural habitat and the creatures that look there.

The idea that we are incapable of impacting the world is ludicrous.

[skinfan133]

Your argument appears to be "nothing Man does can possibly negatively impact the environment, because if you take the amount of pollution that Man is producing and average it over a Billion years, then it's not so bad."

I have literally caught you creating a straw man out of my argument. I refuse to respond to you until you bring me something of merit

[sacase]

You're playing semantics, sacase, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. You knew exactly what I meant by destroying the planet. If this is the only block of rock that we know for a fact supports life, it being a toxic dump and devoid of life would in my mind, and many others, make it destroyed.

It is not natural for entire species of whale, shark, bear, wolf, and other animals to go extinct or to the brink of for us to make sushi and fur coats out of. We're tearing down entire rainforests which is destroying entire ecosystems and in turn causing the extinction of species we haven't even discovered yet. Not to mention, killing of trees limits the amount of C02 to oxygen recycling nearly ever species on the planet relies on for survival. You know the Chesepeak Bay used to be crystal clear? Look at it now.

You're right that we as a species need to learn how to better co-exist with the planet as opposed to tearing it apart for the way we like it. And we're going to have to figure out how best to do that no matter how many people live on this planet. But it's not just overpopulation or just CO2; it's a mindset that involves a business owner having his company pour toxic crap into a river and telling himself it'll have little to no effect on him at all. It may not be his problem, but it will be our kids' problem and their kids' problem as well.

It has to stop.

You won't get me to argue with you about the beauty of nature and that we need to co-exist better. I am all for practical solutions.But this CO2 global climate change BS has got to stop. I am all for protecting the enviroment and living with it. We have gotten much better at controlling what we put in the air and we will continue to do so as technology improves without detriment to our economy and charging enourmous tax bills to citizens.

Larry, is CO2 a pollutant? Yes or No.

PeterMP, can you say that it is a fact, that if we completly stop CO2 emissions, our climate will change? Yes or No.

[skinfan133]

Please watch these videos:

these appear to be long. I tell you this because i actually intend to watch them I may not respond for a while.

[PeterMP]

no it is your model. you explain why it is sufficient to prove your point. it is not on me to do your explaining. "why" is a cop-out. I'd be happy to respond to why it is too simple however. you are using two causal variables to explain a phenomenon that incorporates hundreds if not thousands of separate variables. a third grader could see why such a simple model is insufficient.

I'm not using it as a model to explain climate change. I'm using just to make the point that you can't call CO2 output passive. Lot's of people have said the CO2 output is an issue. Ignoring them is NOT a passive act.

Actions can be taken to reduce CO2 out on a personal level and at a political/national level.

you are absolutely 100% missing my point. the cause is not important.

who the **** cares who's right or wrong if we are all dead? I contend that only a practical realist approach to this problem will save lives. what is your solution? and FYI I don't have one.

The best way to deal with any problem is almost always at the cause. Long term it is the most effecient.

My solution is to start controlling green house gas outputs. Cap and trade has worked for various issues in the past. Where exactly to set the goals is an issue, but the great thing about legislation in this country is it can be changed. I'd be biased to setting to high of goals with the idea that you can come back and reduce them later if needed.

ok bad example, but your missing my point. there are other, more immediate and real and preventable threats to the environment that need to be taken care of as well.

Well in terms of real and immediate, only if you assume the vast majority of the scientists that work in the field are wrong.

The as well part I agree with, but none are likely to have the global impact climate change can have.

you have got to be kidding me. this is my argument. it is sailing over your head.

Your argument is that we have a history of "accidently" creating situations that could drastically alter the future of the human population and by changing our behavior at the source we managed to prevent those situations from happening even though various people at the time were telling us that the we really weren't causing the problem, AND the prescribed solution to the problem was to expensive?

If that's your argument, you really need to be more clear.