Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Out of curiosity, as your belief seems to gravitate to the man-induced theory via elimination of forests (for lumber, construction, etc.) and emissions of all types(by transportation of goods, food, and people, power generation, manufacturing, and farm lands, etc), what will be your solution if the root cause of the problem is overpopulation. If these significant bodies of scientists decide the earth can only support and sustain 980 million people without damage to the planet, who do you plan to eliminate? Here again the simple solution to cause and effect. Why are emissions higher? Because we have more people, needing more food, using more energy, requiring more homes, requiring more jobs, requiring more transportation, etc.

Who decides who stays and who goes? If this is the great emergency that so many like to portray it is, cutting the world population by 2/3rds immediately should drop emissions like a rock overnight. Who wants to get off? Volunteers?

---

I don't know. It's an extremely difficult question — I very much agree that overpopulation is already a problem. What I do know is that I would never support any form of extermination or forced birth control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

There are many more than two sides to the scientific argument. Every study that lead towards the current view of man made climate change was peer reviewed and most likely had opponents questioning the quality of the work and even though it was approved some will still question it's validity. However as a paper is peer reviewed it can be considered valid, but that's not saying its true. Whether man made climate change is happening in general is not a scientific argument but is one of belief and disbelief and is more like a religious argument.

---

Peer review schmeer review :) Back a few hundred years ago a research paper on the shape of the earth could have been reviewed by many peers and have still concluded that the earth was flat. There have been many theories that were once considered very credible that have since been replaced by other theories which have been disproven too :) Knowledge is something that's constantly changing and just because scientists say something that seems sensible yet can't be proven and which seems to conflict other sources of evidence doesn't mean it's correct. I simply think that it's not more than an untested theory and we haven't been testing and recording detailed data for long enough to prove that this is anything more than just a blip.

In an odd sort of way, the blame may lie with nuclear weapons. Love them or hate them, they have done their job as a deterrent to large wars on a global scale like WWI and WWII. Both of those wars, coming so close together decimated the populations of the industrialized nations. Since the end of WWII, we have been breeding like rabbits with nothing to really hold down the population growth. Does make you wonder, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

In an odd sort of way, the blame may lie with nuclear weapons. Love them or hate them, they have done their job as a deterrent to large wars on a global scale like WWI and WWII. Both of those wars, coming so close together decimated the populations of the industrialized nations. Since the end of WWII, we have been breeding like rabbits with nothing to really hold down the population growth. Does make you wonder, doesn't it?

---

I certainly believe that there is a direct correlation between the fact that I don't feel in danger and my failure thus far to give birth. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't know. It's an extremely difficult question — I very much agree that overpopulation is already a problem. What I do know is that I would never support any form of extermination or forced birth control.

---

And if push came to shove with overpopulation being the cause, if you were in political office, you might find yourself having to support extermination with that time honored social philosophy that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual" helping you to sleep.

Perhaps global warming is just that. As we won't hold ourselves in check, the climate will change and thin us down to a managable population level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Peer review schmeer review :) Back a few hundred years ago a research paper on the shape of the earth could have been reviewed by many peers and have still concluded that the earth was flat. There have been many theories that were once considered very credible that have since been replaced by other theories which have been disproven too :) Knowledge is something that's constantly changing and just because scientists say something that seems sensible yet can't be proven and which seems to conflict other sources of evidence doesn't mean it's correct. I simply think that it's not more than an untested theory and we haven't been testing and recording detailed data for long enough to prove that this is anything more than just a blip.

---

As I said peer review does not make something true.

Its not about testing the theory. It cannot be tested as there is only one Earth. It can be modelled and the models are constantly being refined and improving the results. There is nothing else you can do. The ice cores show CO2 and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific principles are widely understood. I won't be able to convince you and I shouldn't because I'm not an expert but maybe you need to look at it in another way seeing why the general consensus is true rather just why it isn't and the comebacks to the skeptic argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

And if push came to shove with overpopulation being the cause, if you were in political office, you might find yourself having to support extermination with that time honored social philosophy that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual" helping you to sleep.

---

I think that we will find a way around it somehow that will never lead to such drastic measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Perhaps global warming is just that. As we won't hold ourselves in check, the climate will change and thin us down to a managable population level.

---

Kind of makes you wonder what the world government's reasons are for combating climate change, protecting the planet, preventing extinction, preventing millions or billions dying or as they seem to focus on, minimising the cost to the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Ok, maybe a few things need to be cleared up.

The sun is not the cause of the current global warming trend. This theory has been thoroughly researched and very well debunked. The problem with graphs like the one posted previously is it stops around 10 years ago.

There are some scientists who doubt AGW (man made global warming). But I am yet to find one that has not been paid by exxon or other commercial interests. If you find one please let me know as I would genuinely like to see it.

I am yet to hear of a climatologist still doubting AGW.

It is not just a few economies at risk. If we continue on our path every country will be adversely affected and potentially millions of lives lost. Not to mention the breakdown of entire ecosystems.

It is possible to slow and reverse the effects. We have around 10-15 years to reach peak carbon output.

Hope that helps. And please cut down on the religious rubbish. People can be sensitive about their religion.

Carbon offsets if misused are useless. If used correctly, they are a valuable tool.

---

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Show me where and how the theory of the sun being the cause of the warming trend has been "debunked". Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be. My mum's car once broke down and when it got towed home I said to my dad "has it got fuel in it" and he said "yes" so I said "does it actually have fuel in it?" to which he of course said "yes" so I asked when it had last been filled up and it turned out that it had been filled up two weeks before. My point is that sometimes the obvious things can be the thing that is wrong and sometimes there's no need to look for an insanely complicated and convoluted explanation to something that may be explained by rather simple factors.

I have a lot of time for people who are suggesting that we are causing global warming because it would be stupid not to listen because the stakes are high. But just because the majority of people who get on TV say this is what happening doesn't mean I'll blindly follow. We question the actions of our governments in regards to Iraq and so on. So why not our scientists?

Btw that graph probably stops at 2000 because it might have been made around that time? Hmmmmm. Hardly a reason to consider it inaccurate or misleading.