Divers Take Note

[Mitch f]

Come on, Mitch, we can play that game all night...there are a whole bunch of politicians and public figures that I tend to distrust, but when they say something that interests me I step back and check the facts. Gore is just a messenger. In this case, from everything I've read on the subject, and I'm obviously interested in it, he was mainly condensing the science, in a few cases distorting it, in a few cases exaggerating it, in a few cases oversimplifying it, but in the main just popularizing it.

Podum, like I said somewhere before, the only way we'll find out if the science is right is by waiting to see what happens, and then it'll be too late if it turns out to be right. This is not something with which you can have a scientific proof. And "provable hypothesis" is kind of an oxymoron, since if it's a hypothesis it's by definition unproven. You can also turn it all around, too. The hypothesis that climate change is NOT caused by human activities is just as unproven and just as unprovable.

And your comparison of climate science to flat earth and earth as the center of the universe doesn't wash, either. There was never any scientific evidence that the earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe, just the "common sense" (and to an extent the religious views in the case of earth being the center of the universe) of the time. When people of a scientific bent actually started finding evidence that it was otherwise, the flat earth and center of the universe views were quickly proven to be wrong. I agree with Tim's analogy in this way: People have an emotional stake in continuing to deny anthropogenic climate change, the same as they have a stake in continuing to believe in creationism. In the one case it's religious, in the other ideological. If you are a dyed in the wool conservative, it smacks of disloyalty to believe in ACC. It's your team and your team has to be right. If science says otherwise, even hypothesizes otherwise, science has to be wrong. And yes, liberals are just as likely to operate that way, but not all of us are rabid liberals or rabid conservatives, and neither are all scientists.

Tim stated the most important circumstantial evidence...there are lots of indications in the real world, not just in the world of data, that says the earth is warming and climate is getting more unstable. Nobody argues that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Nobody argues that there aren't other greenhouse gases. Nobody argues that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2. Nobody argues that we are not liberating carbon in unprecedented levels, carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years and that took millions of years to build up there. And nobody has found evidence that anything else, any "natural" occurrence, is happening right now that can account for whatever warming is taking place. Put that all together, and it makes a pretty good case.

Al,

you misunderstand, nothing to do with Global Warming or what Al Gore believes regarding the environment, I think he's right. I just think he's one of those dishonest politicians you were talking about. I wasn't trying to be political but you got a little defensive there.

[Al Agnew]

Sorry, Mitch...I know you said you agreed with him on the global warming issue. It's just that I see little point in bringing Gore into the discussion since he had nothing to do with the science, just the popularization of the issue. All too many people DON'T "believe" global warming because they're convinced that Gore is Satan's left hand man (pun intended).

[FishinCricket]

It was an honest answer, but it was not a scientific one. Whether Mr. Wells would admit it or not, his feelings on that topic were also the real reason that conference and the intelligent design theory ever existed at all. This group had built their science from their fear they were somehow connected to animals, and from a particular interpretation of the Bible that limited their ability to deal with those implications. That dynamic has barely changed over the last 150 years.

Well said Mr Smith...

[FishinCricket]

Tim, I don't know where to start with your comparison of man-made warming skeptics to creationists. It's offensive.

Only to a strict creationist..

What you are calling "the science" is really your (and others') conclusion about the data. There would be no argument about what "the science" is if the conclusion that man is the driver of climate change IF that conclusion was a scientific proof. It is not a provable hypothesis right now. Maybe in the future it will be.

Good point, let's come back and discuss this in a hundred years...

Consensus is not a scientific proof. Arguably, your consensus argument for man-made warming (which is all over this thread) is much more like the flat earth and earth as the center of the universe arguments of the 14th and 16th centuries than my dissenter argument is like your creationist comparison.

I wouldn't say that...

[Trout Commander]

I present to you a graphic illustration (one added to by me, for comic relief) of the Earth's temperatures over the last 1 million, 150 thousand, 16 thousand and 150 years found here. I in no way agree or disagree with the additional content found here within as I have not read it. I only came to the url for the graph via Google Images.

Would it be possible for someone here to definitively tell me how the human race is responsible for the other periods of global warming hundreds of thousands of years ago? I am assumptive that no one will be able to, so moving forward under that assumption, can anyone tell me how we can be 100% certain that the human race is responsible for the latest peak in global warming?

My stance on global warming is: It exists, obviously, but I feel that the Earth's temperature would be very near what it is today given the scenario that we as a race were not the industrialized civilization we are today. Again this is my stance and I know others have vastly different stances and I do respect that. Additionally, I do feel that the changes discussed in this thread regarding alternative fuel sources and reforestation among others all do need to be addressed, if not for the planet, for our sustainability. Just as I feel we haven't significantly raised the Earth's temperature I don't feel it is possible for the human race to do the opposite. I think we are just along for the ride like the skier on the graph. We can't control the ups and downs anymore than he. With that being said I would still like to see the changes discussed be implemented, so can't we quit debating this subject that people from each extreme have agreed that there is no concrete evidence pointing to yes or no and work together toward those changes?

Thank you to FlySmallie for posting the fox hat pic in the other thread

[Mitch f]

Sorry, Mitch...I know you said you agreed with him on the global warming issue. It's just that I see little point in bringing Gore into the discussion since he had nothing to do with the science, just the popularization of the issue. All too many people DON'T "believe" global warming because they're convinced that Gore is Satan's left hand man (pun intended).

No worries, I tend to type and regret. You are always about three steps ahead of everyone on this forum anyway.

[Tim Smith]

Tim, I don't know where to start with your comparison of man-made warming skeptics to creationists. It's offensive. What you are calling "the science" is really your (and others') conclusion about the data. There would be no argument about what "the science" is if the conclusion that man is the driver of climate change IF that conclusion was a scientific proof. It is not a provable hypothesis right now. Maybe in the future it will be. Consensus is not a scientific proof. Arguably, your consensus argument for man-made warming (which is all over this thread) is much more like the flat earth and earth as the center of the universe arguments of the 14th and 16th centuries than my dissenter argument is like your creationist comparison.

Podum, I get that you are offended. In response I can only say it was not my intent to offend you and I am very sorry that you feel that way. If you can point out a specific point where I stepped over the line I'd be glad to reconsider it. Unfortunately, based on what you're posting here it's pretty clear to me that you're wrong about some very basic points, and I am going to confront you on those. I'm going to have to trust that you have enough maturity to keep your emotions in check and stick to the facts because there are things much more important here than whether or not you like me.

After all, I could be offended too. You are lecturing me here about science when your post is full of basic misunderstandings about science.

First of all, 100% concensus is not a realistic expectation for almost any topic in science, especially in complex dynamic systems like climate. There are always stragglers in any crowd. We've had 20+ years and millions of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps billions by now) invested by the fossil fuel industry to uncover data refuting a human role in global warming. Yet that has not occurred. You can find individual scientists who's ideas have been disproven and who are still angry about that. But you can't find a coherent explanation for why the climate is warming except the human role. To imagine that an issue is still up for substantive debate because a handful of dissenters are still in love with the petrochemical teat is to misunderstand the whole process...

...which apparently you do in spades.

For instance here it's clear that you think "Conclusions about data" aren't part of the scientific method. Without conclusions, data would sit forever in a pile on a deck and no one would ever benefit from it. You should have learned that in High School. Your statement there makes it seem you're not interested in purity of science, you're just looking for a way to cut science out of the process. It's the same falacy that says "Evolution is just a theory" (and therefore we don't have to take it seriously even as the evidence to support it is piling through the roof).

Given that you apparently don't know what the scientific method is, I suppose I could also be offended that you apparently want to claim the mantle of Copernicus. Yet it was Copernicus who was persecuted by religion/political forces for using the scientific method...which you apparently haven't bothered to learn.

But I'm not offended. I know you're still sorting through all this. People lash out when they're challenged. Good people eventually focus on the facts and do what's right.

We are at the turning point where this is issue is transforming from a scientific debate into a moral one. The pain is coming. For some it is already here. Year by year, decade by decade it is going to get worse. We may not know yet how best to respond to this issue, but it is time to raise our game and address the real issues...

...which at this point is determing the exact size of the human effect, the implications for those effects, and the efficacy of the various fixes.

[Tim Smith]

Good point, let's come back and discuss this in a hundred years...

No need to wait that long. Go look at the predictions for rainfall and temperature in Mid-America (more intense rains with less overall precipitation and higher average temperatures). Those trends have borne out.

Then go ask the people at Opryland, or the campers at Albert's Pike, or the people living below that dam that collapsed in Iowa if they expected to deal with 13 inch rains this summer.

[Trout Commander]

more intense rains with less overall precipitation ///// Those trends have borne out.

Says who?

[Trout Commander]

Also, and I am not try to debate here, how do the stated rainfall patterns/trends correlate to climate change? Again, I am not debating or questioning out of disbelief, I honestly want to learn the connection.