Question for Global Warming skeptics

[Hubbs]

Possible, but they've done studies looking at the probability of misdiagnosises and it can explain a fraction, but certainly not the whole... besides, you're certainly not arguing that human pollution doesn't have a significant impact on human health, are you? You really want to start adding more lead in the water, arsenic in your pottery, and asbestos in your insulation or playgrounds. You really want to breathe exhaust laden air 24 hours a day?

Of course not. This is one of the areas in which I very much disagree with Ron Paul, in fact. In an industrial society, one of the roles of government has to be enforcing environmental standards.

But I was talking about more than just misdiagnoses. There's also the increasing ability to make a diagnosis. A hundred years ago, how many diseases would your average doctor have been able to diagnose? How many deaths were slapped with the "old age" label? How many times did people living out in Farmland USA get to talk with a doctor about mild forms of asthma? How many times was sports asthma written off as just some guy who's out of shape? I'm sure they wouldn't have called it sports asthma back then. I doubt the classification of "asthma which is only induced by a large burst of physical activity" existed at all. You were out of shape, or lazy, or maybe a frequent victim of "pnuemonia."

In other words, I do think that something we're doing is contributing to higher rates of autism. But I don't think that the contribution has multiplied the true rate of autism by 100,000% over a couple generations, or whatever the crazy number is.

Then there's the fact that it's statistically impossible to account for all of the diseases that don't happen because of changes in environment or behavior. How many people don't get infected by some bacteria because of advances in food production? How many people don't get pneumonia because of the industrial production that's erected dry and warm homes for nearly everyone since the beginning of the 20th century? Hell, how many people don't get skin cancer because of sunscreen? There's a tendency to focus on the diseases and conditions on the rise, especially the ones for which we can find a direct causation.

Also, when people live longer, the rate of disease will inevitably go up. When more people are living into their 70's, the percentage of the population with cancer will increase. Same goes for heart disease, arthritis, strokes, etc.

[panel]

Of course not. This is one of the areas in which I very much disagree with Ron Paul, in fact. In an industrial society, one of the roles of government has to be enforcing environmental standards.

Ron Paul supports laws that protect against pollution.

[Ken]

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the incredible rise in the rate of asthma, cancer and other environmentally induced illnesses since the 1950's. If you look at the pattern of man made pollution and human illness the correlation is incredible. More, we know humans impact the world. Heck, we've created deserts, we've eliminated entire species, we've changed the course of rivers or made them unusable. So, why is it so hard to believe that man can't harm the world when we can see his imprint on it every day?

You are correct that a few additional volcanoes or a meteor of a certain size hitting the planet would be catastrophic, but those are things we have limited ability to impact. We should study these things as well, but to ignore the things we can control because there are things outside of our control seems foolish. I can't stop a terrorist from attacking America, does that mean we should disband all intelligence agencies. People get killed by lightning. Does that mean we should disband every police homicide division?

While I think that environment plays a part in the illnesses you are referring to here, it is far from the sole cause and difference since the 50s. IMO, things like food additives, diet, medications, and technology/lifestyle have contributed more to the human decline in overall health and vitality than anything else.

[December90]

This is a question for people who do not think that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it.

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind?

Turn this question around and ask all the "global warming - sky is falling chicken littles"

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind? (I understand that it is nearly impossible to "prove" a negative.)

[laxpck]

Even if there was overwhelming evidence of the current trends being unprecedented in Earth's history (which limestone deposits in Bahamian blue holes show is NOT the case), it is the ability for man to adapt, not control, change that has led to being the dominant species on the planet.

I am all for cleaning up the way we do business as much a practical, but its quite limited to not see the population explosion of humans over the last 200 years as at least somewhat dependent on the availability of cheap energy.

Great NOVA special called Extreme Cave Diving....here is the transcript portions that underpin the fact that radical temperature swings occured on earth before the mass use of carbon for fuel by humans

NARRATOR: So the stalagmite that Brian and Kenny have cut could provide a gold mine of global climate history. Using that history, Swart may be able to answer a critical question. While most scientists believe that Earth's climate is changing, they are struggling to figure out how fast. This stalagmite could help answer the question.

To decode it, Swart first has to cut it lengthwise with a diamond saw.

Inside, it displays regular bands of growth, like the rings in a tree. Embedded in each band is the climate biography of a specific period.

With analysis, Swart can describe how much it rained, what chemicals were in the rain, soil and air, even the temperature. Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

But then he notices two curious details: first, the way the bands formed suggests that at least one of these climate episodes came on very abruptly.

At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.

And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.

So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.

In the blue hole where they cut the stalagmite, Brian and Kenny noticed something that might help solve the mystery. In the cave wall, they found a layer of red sediment. The color is the key here: the red in the dust means it's loaded with iron. And that means that thousands of years ago, a thick layer of iron-rich red dust covered the island's surface.

Repeated rains washed it through the rock, leaving a bright red band.

So how did the red dust get here? One theory suggests it came from the Sahara Desert, some 4,000 miles away.

During times of extreme drought, towering dust storms gather in the Sahara, pushing dust high into the atmosphere, where it's carried across the Atlantic.

When Swart analyzes the iron in the stalagmite, he confirms that it's made of Sahara dust, though its red color has been washed out after thousands of years.

And in the dark band, he isn't finding traces of iron, but significant concentrations.

PETER SWART: Now, the iron was very low concentrations, with the exception of this boundary here.

NARRATOR: The areas with the highest concentration of iron correspond almost exactly to the places on the stalagmite where the chemical composition indicates a period of major climate change.

That probably means a major Sahara dust event came right before each change, when temperatures and sea levels rose.

The fact that Saharan dust storms happen with greater frequency today is raising concerns that history could be repeating itself.

PETER SWART: Now, we know, for the last 40, 50 years, there's been a major drought in Africa. And that has seen an input in the amount of dust which is coming from the Sahara region to the Bahamas.

NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

PETER SWART: We don't worry too much about climate change, because it's something that's going to happen "after I'm dead." But, in actual fact, some of the records that we've been looking at, we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.

NARRATOR: Swart's findings are preliminary, but they do suggest that climate change in the past happened faster than anyone imagined. If such change occurred today, immediate concern would be for the millions of people in areas most affected by sea level rise—island nations and coastal regions throughout the world.

[Hubbs]

Ron Paul supports laws that protect against pollution.

Ron Paul supports combating pollution through the court system as another aspect of property rights. I think that's logistically impossible.

[War Paint]

While I think that environment plays a part in the illnesses you are referring to here, it is far from the sole cause and difference since the 50s. IMO, things like food additives, diet, medications, and technology/lifestyle have contributed more to the human decline in overall health and vitality than anything else.

Exactly. We've been bombarded with chemicals in food. MSG, Sodium Nitrate, Corn Syrup, etc... Propylene glycol is in several foods and it's considered "lower toxic Anti-freeze". Most foods come in plastics now which leak BPA into the food. Sodium Fluoride, a deadly poison is put into our tap water.

Of course you have technology too. Teflon cooking pots release chemicals and fumes that kill birds, yet it's safe for us? You have the possible cell phone use causing cancer links. I can't remember where I saw it, but I read a long time ago that some Russian study showed that using mircrowaves to cook food makes the food harmful to eat. It suggested that the radiation converts proteins of the food in carcinogens.

[GhostofSparta]

This is a question for people who do not think that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it.

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind?

"I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who are telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

To be honest, I believe the earth is getting warmer, but am one of those rare types that's still on the fence about AGW. And yes, I know that people like alexey hate the hypocrite argument, but well....that's why I'm not fully in the AGW camp. If the science were truly as clear as the fame-whores who spout it say it is, they would be living a drastically different lifestyle. Now, I'm not one of those "You're a hypocrite if you don't live in a cave and shun all modern society lulz!" types, but if Al Gore truly believed what he said, he would live in a smaller house and not fly around the world for photo-ops and PowerPoint presentations. All those Live Earth bands and attendees wouldn't have put so much pollution in the environment to stop polluting the environment (especially the tons of litter left at the concert sites). I want a cleaner world and a better environment, but it's like most causes: the wrong public face for a great cause can turn off those who would normally be inclined to it. I don't fully understand the science behind AGW, so I expect those who are claiming to champion it to be a more effective leader.

To me, it's the same way I view Bono's crusade about African poverty. Fighting poverty in Africa is a great cause and a worth goal. But when U2 makes more in a year than most African nations' GDPs combined, why is he not doing more? I'm not saying Bono has to be destitute to be correct or a good face for the cause, but when Bono sits on more cash in any given day than I'll ever see in my life I get the sense that he's not truly passionate about this and is doing it more to feel good about himself and make me think he's a good person. This doesn't absolve me of my need to do the right thing, but it does make me hate him when he preaches at my about my need to do more when he's holding plenty back himself.

It doesn't make it right, but it can help explain the resistance to the cause.

[alexey]

My first problem is that I'm skeptical about how perfectly we're assessing the sum total of human activity.

...

In other words, there are trillions of factors which determine a planet's climate, and each of those factors have a different weight.

...

In science this is addressed by the amount of available data, replication of results, and verifying predictions. GW actually started as a fringe theory with little support. Decades have passed before enough work was accumulated and enough predictions were confirmed to place GW as the mainstream scientific theory that it is today. Other theories (cloud cover, sunspots, etc) did not stand up to such scrutiny.

[alexey]

Turn this question around and ask all the "global warming - sky is falling chicken littles"

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind? (I understand that it is nearly impossible to "prove" a negative.)

I would appreciate it if you refrained from name calling.

To answer your question... It's not a matter of evidence. I do not consider myself qualified to examine global climate data. Unless I have expertise in a particular area, I would generally defer to the mainstream scientific opinion.

[alexey]

To be honest, I believe the earth is getting warmer, but am one of those rare types that's still on the fence about AGW. And yes, I know that people like alexey hate the hypocrite argument, but well....that's why I'm not fully in the AGW camp. If the science were truly as clear as the fame-whores who spout it say it is, they would be living a drastically different lifestyle. Now, I'm not one of those "You're a hypocrite if you don't live in a cave and shun all modern society lulz!" types, but if Al Gore truly believed what he said, he would live in a smaller house and not fly around the world for photo-ops and PowerPoint presentations. All those Live Earth bands and attendees wouldn't have put so much pollution in the environment to stop polluting the environment (especially the tons of litter left at the concert sites). I want a cleaner world and a better environment, but it's like most causes: the wrong public face for a great cause can turn off those who would normally be inclined to it. I don't fully understand the science behind AGW, so I expect those who are claiming to champion it to be a more effective leader.

...

It doesn't make it right, but it can help explain the resistance to the cause.

It's an interesting point. A couple of thoughts on that.

There are tons of people who are concerned about AGW and are doing stuff about it. (e.g. http://www.350.org/)

Being able to make appropriate energy choices requires infrastructure, etc. Can you switch to buying renewable electricity if you want to? Can you buy an electric car? Is public transportation available and convenient where you live? Let's examine people's behavior after these possibilities become more available.

[Reic]

you state that the only convincing evidence of man-made global warming would be to demonstrate that warming never has nor could arise from any other reason.

which seems remarkably equivelent to my capital murder analogy. In your post you aren't asking for evidence for/or/against human-induced global warming... at all.

Evidence that the Earth has warming and cooling trends is evidence against man having induced those climate trends is it not? Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, and the earth has been around for a few billion, as have the warming and cooling periods.

To think that humans can induce global climate shifts is, in my opinion, far fetched. Can we contribute to the severity of a climate shift? perhaps, but I don't think our impact is as severe as people claim it to be. Humans are just a speck on Earth's history, and 99% of all life in earth's history is extinct, I don't see how we are the exception to that rule.

[alexey]

Evidence that the Earth has warming and cooling trends is evidence against man having induced those climate trends is it not?

Natural variations in the climate have to be accounted for by theories. They help scientists learn more about climate dynamics and allow them to test their theories. This actually puts more weight behind AGW findings.

To think that humans can induce global climate shifts is, in my opinion, far fetched. Can we contribute to the severity of a climate shift? perhaps, but I don't think our impact is as severe as people claim it to be. Humans are just a speck on Earth's history, and 99% of all life in earth's history is extinct, I don't see how we are the exception to that rule.

Yes we haven't been here for a long time, and yet we are significantly altering the climate. That's why people are worried about this whole thing.

[Reic]

Natural variations in the climate have to be accounted for by theories. They help scientists learn more about climate dynamics and allow them to test their theories. This actually gives more weight behind AGW findings.

Yes we haven't been here for a long time, and yet we are significantly altering the climate. That's why people are worried about this whole thing.

I just don't buy into the "significantly altering the climate" stuff. The Earth has an incredible way of healing herself, and a mass global extinction more than likely is not going to be human driven. The earth gets warmer, the earth gets cooler, there have been multiple "ice ages" and there is no ice on campus right now so that alone stands for something. Humans need to find a blame for why things happen the way they happen, but at the end of the day nature always runs its course with or without humans in the driver's seat.

[alexey]

I just don't buy into the "significantly altering the climate" stuff. The Earth has an incredible way of healing herself, and a mass global extinction more than likely is not going to be human driven. The earth gets warmer, the earth gets cooler, there have been multiple "ice ages" and there is no ice on campus right now so that alone stands for something. Humans need to find a blame for why things happen the way they happen, but at the end of the day nature always runs its course with or without humans in the driver's seat.

I sympathize with your sentiment, but we are talking about science here. It's a systematic, deliberate way of obtaining and verifying knowledge. Let me reassure you that current climate theories account for everything that you wrote and much more than that.

[alexey]

I agree completely and our scientists should be investigating that. My problem with much of the global warming crowd and it's discussions publically and in terms of politics seem to based around preventing the inevitable. I'm probably off topic since this thread wasn't really directed at me since I think, just from a common sense standpoint, that all the chemicals we dump into the atmosphere have to have an effect. I just could care less about how you define it, who's at fault, how to prevent it, ect, it's immaterial to me. What's material to me is will DC be under water in 30 years and if so do we need to build dykes or gtfo? I hope that sometime in the future the conversation can progress to those types of questions and move away from the repub v dem, enviro nut v oil company political debates that mire the subject down in something other than reality and progress.

If the difference between 400ppm and 450ppm is mass starvation, then it may make sense to try and prevent that.

As a side note, nobody is talking about prevention at this point. We will already have to deal with some major ****.

[Teller]

First of all, it's going to take a whole lot more than examining 200 years worth of climate data, when the earth is circa 6 million years old. We've got proof of prior ice ages. We've got proof that they ended. And we've got proof that ALL of this happened without input from man. I don't claim to fully understand climate data either alexey (and I respect the fact that you admit as much), but those things aren't in dispute. So isn't it fair to say that cyclical changes here on earth aren't in dispute either? And about sea levels, haven't they fluctuated right along with those ice ages and the end of them? I mean, when the water freezes, sea levels drop. When the earth warms again, sea levels rise. (Maybe that's why we can find seashell fossils in the MIDDLE of the United States.) I don't recall the universe ever promising us a specific shoreline would always be where we want it, and I'm pretty sure it's fluctuated a lot more in 6 million years than in the last 200. (Again, without our input.)

What would it take....excellent question. An examination of a time when the sun, atmosphere, and other factors were as close to conditions are now as possible, and demonstrating that in spite of that, things are warming much faster now. (Presumably because of human input.)

Something else that would also help global warming (you said warming, so I will too) proponents is not constantly attaching GW to a political agenda. That inherently causes a lack of credibility. For example, if I say, "We need to defeat Barack Obama because we have better ideas for the direction of the country," many will get on board. If I say, "We need to defeat Barack Obama because he's a socialist, and he's going to turn us into the new USSR, and we can't allow that to happen," most reasonable people will turn away.

Likewise, If we say, "We need cleaner air and water, because it's the right thing to do," every reasonable person will get on board. But if we say, "We need cap and tax, and to push impractical vehicles, and to attack coal and other fossil fuels because we're singlehandedly killing the planet," most reasonable people will look at you like you're an agenda-driving loon.

I realize I've strayed from the thread topic some, but I hope I've also answered your question. And how the argument is presented DEFINITELY plays a role in how it is received.

Additionally, maybe the international global-warming advocates should go after China just a little bit. We in the United States have already come a long way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cleaning up our water. Meanwhile, China belches more crap into the atmosphere than any country on earth. But we don't go after them. We go after the United States. Again....agenda? Or legitimate mission? I know what my perception is.

[Thiebear]

how to we keep going from Man made global warming and its effects.

vs.

Global warming?

disclaimer: Those pesky charts on temperature could be wrong: who knows what data was used

[alexey]

First of all, it's going to take a whole lot more than examining 200 years worth of climate data, when the earth is circa 6 million years old. We've got proof of prior ice ages. We've got proof that they ended. And we've got proof that ALL of this happened without input from man. I don't claim to fully understand climate data either alexey (and I respect the fact that you admit as much), but those things aren't in dispute. So isn't it fair to say that cyclical changes here on earth aren't in dispute either? And about sea levels, haven't they fluctuated right along with those ice ages and the end of them? I mean, when the water freezes, sea levels drop. When the earth warms again, sea levels rise. (Maybe that's why we can find seashell fossils in the MIDDLE of the United States.) I don't recall the universe ever promising us a specific shoreline would always be where we want it, and I'm pretty sure it's fluctuated a lot more in 6 million years than in the last 200. (Again, without our input.)

What would it take....excellent question. An examination of a time when the sun, atmosphere, and other factors were as close to conditions are now as possible, and demonstrating that in spite of that, things are warming much faster now. (Presumably because of human input.)

This, and much more, went towards the current mainstream scientific position.

Something else that would also help global warming (you said warming, so I will too) proponents is not constantly attaching GW to a political agenda. That inherently causes a lack of credibility. For example, if I say, "We need to defeat Barack Obama because we have better ideas for the direction of the country," many will get on board. If I say, "We need to defeat Barack Obama because he's a socialist, and he's going to turn us into the new USSR, and we can't allow that to happen," most reasonable people will turn away.

Reasonable people will turn away because there is no evidence of Obama being a socialist.

Likewise, If we say, "We need cleaner air and water, because it's the right thing to do," every reasonable person will get on board. But if we say, "We need cap and tax, and to push impractical vehicles, and to attack coal and other fossil fuels because we're singlehandedly killing the planet," most reasonable people will look at you like you're an agenda-driving loon.

Reasonable people will not turn away because there is evidence of fossil fuels significantly altering the climate.

(We are not "killing the planet" because the planet is not alive. We are killing loads of lifeforms on it, though, and that's well documented.)

[alexey]

how to we keep going from Man made global warming and its effects.

vs.

Global warming?

disclaimer: Those pesky charts on temperature could be wrong: who knows what data was used

You will not find anybody claiming that CO2 is the only factor that drives the climate. Also, please try to stick to the topic of the thread.

[Peeping Wizard]

This is a question for people who do not think that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it.

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind?

Much, much more data than we currently have.

[Teller]

This, and much more, went towards the current mainstream scientific position.

I notice you keep saying that, or something very close to it, but not elaborating. I'm getting the, "we need to pass healthcare so we can tell you what's in it" vibe here.

Reasonable people will turn away because there is no evidence of Obama being a socialist.

That's a matter of opinion.

Reasonable people will not turn away because there is evidence of fossil fuels significantly altering the climate.

Again, compared to my "control group" of the same sun and atmospheric conditions without man?

(We are not "killing the planet" because the planet is not alive. We are killing loads of lifeforms on it, though, and that's well documented.)

I didn't get that expression from my side of the debate.

[alexey]

Much, much more data than we currently have.

What kind of data?

[alexey]

I notice you keep saying that, or something very close to it, but not elaborating. I'm getting the, "we need to pass healthcare so we can tell you what's in it" vibe here.

Are you suggesting that science failed to account for things that you mentioned?

That's a matter of opinion.

Socialism is when the state controls the means of production. Under Obama, the state took control of means of losing money

[Ken]

This is a question for people who do not think that Global Warming is a problem and we need to do something about it.

What kind of evidence would you need to change your mind?

from the top of my head, things that come to mind...

Evidence I would need is the following:

1. A valid explanation as to why Sun spots have no room in the Global Warming believers ability to contemplate rises and reductions in global temperature.

2. Why has Al Gore backed off the CO2 is the devil mantra and does now only say it plays a major role in it?

3. When the IPCC and CRU starts considering all scientific viewpoints and not discarding those that don't agree with the overall goal, I will give more credibility to the Global Warming hysteria.

4. Can anyone explain how we went from "The Coming Ice Age" in the 70s to the global warming scare we have been in? Forgive me if I'm skeptical on GW.

5. Why has "Global Warming" turned into "Climate Change"? Was the first one not broad enough and now they had to account for the obvious cooling period we just went through? hmmmm....

6. Why hasn't James Hansen's 1990 First Assessment for the report for the IPCC that claimed wild temperature changes report not come true (or even on any trajectory to be true 20 years later?

7. Why in 1995 did James Hansen write the 2nd Assessment report for the IPCC with "no discernible human effect on climate" written in it 5 times? Why were those edited out in the final report by the same guy implicated in "Climate Gate"?

I could go on and on but this is probably a good start...