Divers Take Note

[Justin Spencer]

But using invasive species (that were moved into new habitats by man) as support for a man-made warming argument is silly.

Take time to read before you write and you will see that that wasn't the comparison I was making.

I'm convinced there isn't significant man-madewarming

I normally have a very open mind about most people's opinions, but on this one the evidence is so overwhelming I am going to say you are 100% wrong. I would love to see some concrete evidence to the contrary otherwise my mind won't change.

[podum]

not trying to start an argument, but reading your prior post, a reader could reach the reasonable conclusion you were making that argument. (maybe you should read you prior post in the context of the post you were responding to).

The "concrete evidence" is impossible to find on either side. And you should acknowledge that.

There are smart people on both sides that can cite evidence supporting their conclusions. Neither side can prove they are right. I happen to believe that the carbon cycle calculations and the history of rapid warming (and cooling) in the past, combined with the wealth of alarmist, over-simplified panic mongering coming from global warming alarmists that happen to have an ENORMOUS financial interest in an outcome that supports their conclusion leads to a conclusion that the man-made argument is over blown and will fade into history. I'm not saying I'm definitely right. But if you say you are right, you are taking a great deal on faith and not on science.

Point is: (1) reasonable people can disagree on this (2) villifying people that take the other side of the argument is not rational and (3) it doesn't matter which side is right because there are 3 billion people in India and China building 3 coal plants a week that make the argument irrelevant.

[podum]

and . . . Cricket, I want to fish the Niangua with you, post haste

[dennis boatman]

I say let them eat cake...

I like cake....

[flytyer57]

The way I see this hype about global warming is:

1) We can ignore it and maybe it will go away.

2) We as a country, can lead the world to alternative fuel sources and hopefully stem the problem or at least clean up this planet.

3)Keep burning fossil fuels and ruin this planet.

Nobody can tell me that fossil fuels are not doing damage to this planet. Nor can anybody tell me that cutting down all the rain forests is a good idea.

If you want to be on the side of #3 above, let's pave the whole planet in the name of progress and build coal fired plants, nuclear plants, and build cars that only get 2 miles to the gallon so we can all drive "safe cars" that will tow our big expensive gas guzzeling boats to the water that no longer exists because we paved over it.

Whether or not "global warming" is real, it's time to take a stand and do something about keeping this planet healthy.

[podum]

Ironically, building nuclear power plants would do more to solve the problem than any other proposed solution.

[Al Agnew]

The post that started this talked about the damage to coral reefs due to two main factors. One, increased oceanic temperatures, combined with high levels of sunlight, causes coral bleaching. Two, acidification of the ocean, turning it more acidic due to changes in CO2 levels, also kills coral.

Those are FACTS. Period.

Some other facts...glacial ice in temperate climes and in some polar regions has been receding for a couple of decades at least. Two ways it can recede--warming temperatures can melt it faster in the warm seasons than it can be replenished in the cold seasons. And decreased snowfall can keep glaciers from replenishing their ice.

The Arctic Ocean has less ice in the summer now than at any time in the historical past.

Growing seasons are changing, with longer growing seasons moving northward (and southward).

Weather patterns are changing. For instance, warmer temperatures in the area of Australia have moved the rainfall patterns southward (remember Australia is in the southern hemisphere) and is causing extended droughts on a regular basis.

You can find a lot of other evidence in natural processes that will tell you the planet is warming. You can cherry-pick data from weather stations, massage it a bit, and come up with statistics that global temperatures may not be rising, but even NASA, along with every scientific climate organization, says the great preponderance of data says it's warming. But in the case of coral and the other natural processes I listed above, that's not statistics, that's concrete evidence. I'll go so far as to say that anybody who doesn't think the planet is warming is either ignorant or sticking their head in the sand.

And now one more fact...atmospheric CO2 levels have risen well over 30% in the last 100 years and the levels are rising faster all the time...and human activities are causing the rise--nobody argues against that. And nobody argues that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas--the only argument is in how effective a greenhouse gas it is.

But now it gets political. I think one big reason a lot of people don't go along with the VAST (I can't emphasize that enough--we're talking something like 95% of the scientists in fields that have relevance to climate) majority of scientists in relevant fields, who are saying it's a clear and present danger, is because of the predictions based upon computer modeling. Computer modeling of something as complex as climate, with as many factors that can alter things, is certainly an inexact science.

Another big reason is that because the climate is so complex, you can't say with absolute certainty that increased CO2 levels are causing X percentage of climate change. There are certainly other factors. The amount of forest clearing in the tropics (it's horrendous). The amount of development over the earth (removing tree cover and replacing it with bare ground and asphalt, which soaks up heat while NOT soaking up CO2). The amount of OTHER greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (methane is 10 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, water vapor can also be a greenhouse gas).

And to do something concrete about CO2 in the atmosphere, it means messing around with the way we produce and use energy, and that has MAJOR economic ramifications. So anybody with a vested interest in energy (and we know the energy companies from big oil to big coal have an inordinate amount of power and influence) is going to do all they can to question the NEED for reducing CO2 by curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

And so, you have a lot of people who are convinced that it isn't a problem, or it isn't caused by human activities. Some of them would just rather believe the tiny minority of scientists who don't think it's a problem. Some of them take the fact that the climate goes through apparently natural cycles to just assume that this is another natural cycle. Some prefer to think it's all a conspiracy to somehow redistribute wealth. And they are all reinforced in their thinking by the media they tend to watch, whether it be the conservation talk show entertainers or the main stream media, which sometimes sensationalizes, sometimes gets their facts wrong, and often tries to give both sides of the issue equal weight, as if there is an equal number of scientists and an equal amount of evidence on both sides.

So stop and ask yourself a few questions, before you decide what to believe.

1. Who stands to benefit? The "anti-global warming" folks would have you believe that the scientists who are warning us about the problem are doing so because that's how they get their grants. But many of the scientists on the other side are being funded by the energy companies who stand to lose if fossil fuel use is curtailed.

2. Who has an agenda? The anti-global warming folks would have you believe that a lot of scientists are really in it to alter the world's economy in some fashion. But many of the scientists on the other side are working for the energy companies.

3. How many scientists are on one side or the other? And how many of them are either deluded, dishonest, or incompetent? The anti-global warming folks would have you believe that a lot of scientists are fudging data, lying about it, or just following the herd. But simple understanding of human nature would tell you that there are probably about the same (hopefully small) percentage of scientists on BOTH sides that are deluded, dishonest, or incompetent--which still leaves the vast majority of smart, honest, competent scientists on the "pro-global warming" side.

4. Who do you believe? The politicians and talk show entertainers, or the science and the scientists?

That's why I think that human induced climate change is real, is happening already, and is going to be a huge problem. Not because I listened to Al Gore, or even because I read his book. Because I've taken the time to read the REAL science and understand it as much as possible.

My problem is that I don't think we are going to be able to do enough to "fix" things. The general public doesn't have the knowledge needed to have the political will to do what needs to be done even if there CAN be enough done to solve it. What's going to probably happen is that we'll go on fighting about it until far too late, and then we'll have to figure out how to live with it.

[podum]

No argument that we are in a warming cycle in the last 40 years. Argument over whether it's a man-made warming cycle.

No argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Argument over whether even a 30% increase in CO2, which is by any calc a miniscule component of our atmosphere (and one that has been volitile over the millenia without man's influence), could possibly cause a significant warming. And there is a significant amount of data that shows CO2 levels follow warming, and don't lead or predict it.

Those of us who have problems with man made global warming thoeories dont necessarily care any less about the environment, conservation or resource issues than you do.

[podum]

Quote "That's why I think that human induced climate change is real, is happening already, and is going to be a huge problem. Not because I listened to Al Gore, or even because I read his book. Because I've taken the time to read the REAL science and understand it as much as possible."

My point is tha the "real science" is a myth, at least right now. There is a significant faith component in any man made warming argument.

[flytyer57]

Ironically, building nuclear power plants would do more to solve the problem than any other proposed solution.

Except nobody wants the nuclear waste burried in their own back yards.