Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
 

I had dinner with some people last night and the topic of global warming came up and some of the people at the table are firm believers that global warming is nothing but a bunch of BS. This was the first time I ever came across people who have a hard time believing that something is awry with our weather. Anyway, it got me wonderin what everyone else thinks of the situation. So what do you think? Are we experiencing global warming or do you think the theory is just some fad?

global warming is real....that is why last week it was 73 degrees, La Nina didn't do that by herself

A few weeks ago some guy on the Today show said that it could just be patterns in the weather. Some 70 years ago (or something like that) the weather was in a similar pattern as it has been this year. I don't know if he is offering his theory to oppose global warming or just something new to consider.

Of course it is!

Ask people in Co., Ca., NC., Fl., and Ks, Mo. Ok., Ak., ETC!

Yepper, heck we never heard about El Nino untill a few years ago.

Oh Well!:( :rolleyes:

That could simply be attributed to natural climate changes and weather patterns. And actually, both El Nino and La Nina can cause definite climate changes and weather patterns in North America, especially in the Midwest, Northeast, and California. La Nina is actually going to make things colder. So if you think 73 is warm for right now.......you should blame El Nino.

Concerning global warming,
1.) We don't have the technology to accurately predict future climates (especially when taking into consideration solar and volcanic activity, sea temperature, etc.).....So i'm a little skeptical when I see Al Gore standing in front of a projector asserting that New York City will be covererd in 35 feet of water in the next few decades. We know you created the Internet.....just not sure that you can predict the future.
2.) There have been well documented rises in temperature before. In fact, there was 4+ centuries worth of it during the Middle Ages. Subsequently, the rise in temperature was followed by a pint sized Ice Age.....which is also well documented and historically accurate.
3.) Before blaming C02 and Greenhouse Gasses (in short, people) take into consideration that the earth has had high concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere even during ice ages (actually the concentration percentages were extraordinarily higher then than they are now.) You can learn this in common geology/oceanography class.
4.) Any climatologist will tell you that C02 spikes have always followed rises in temperature....not the other way around.

They don’t call it Global Warming Theory for nothing. Oh, and before anyone rips me a new one keep in mind that I come from an Oil family.

Who knows. Not the scientific community, despite their consistent longings for you to put all your faith in them.

We've known there's a hole in the Ozone layer since I was a child. We know it causes the greenhouse effect. Well, apparently, we thought we knew. Greekchat has convinced me of groundbreaking research being done on global warming that disproves everything I thought I knew. Except...no links or citations.

Here's the way I'm approaching it. First off, I don't know. I'm in law school, and have no environmental background. In short, when it comes to comprehending the science of this, I have to take someone's word for it. Now.. as to who I believe?

Alternative #1: Global warming people are right + the world ignores them = end of civilization as we know it.

Alternative #2: Global warming people are wrong + the world gets on board with them anyhow and reduces emissions = cleaner air.

That said, just about any proposal I've ever seen has been essentially meaningless. Heavy cuts are required of the U.S. while countries like China and India get off scott free. If we're looking for global change, it has to be global. As it stands, it seems like global warming is being used as a weapon to weaken the United States. If that is the case, bring on the flooding. We'll survive it.

I don't think the world is ignoring anything.....just reluctant to get into a state of hysteria over the whole global warming thing. Hell, in the 70's everyone went into hysteria over the possibility of global cooling..........and nothing really happened.

The research I was speaking of isn't groundbreaking.......rather well established and routinely used for quite some time. I also wasn't talking about the Ozone Layer. No one is debating that the Ozone is being depleted. The big question concerns the correlation between greenhouse gasses and global warming.

I don't have links or citations......I don't spend all day browsing the internet. Nothing I posted is a theory or a hypothesis, its the truth. If you want to check them for validity, I would start with the United States Geological Survey, then perhaps the United States Climatology Center, they have websites. Geology/Oceanography classes are good too.

I'm fine with more emphasis on lowering emissions and such, but what I'm not ok with is how divided it is becoming. If you wanna help, then help...but don't act like oil companies and those not eager to accept everything the scientific community says are intent on destroying the earth.

Satellite images have shown that the polar ice cap is melting. This will have repercussions on the global climate and environment. From this web site:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century
Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. (Sea level is not affected when floating sea ice melts.) At particular risk are island nations like the Maldives; over half of that nation's populated islands lie less than 6 feet above sea level. Even major cities like Shanghai and Lagos would face similar problems, as they also lie just six feet above present water levels.

Rising seas would severely impact the United States as well. Scientists project as much as a 3-foot sea-level rise by 2100. According to a 2001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study, this increase would inundate some 22,400 square miles of land along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, primarily in Louisiana, Texas, Florida and North Carolina.

(end of quotes) Now, just logically thinking, with asthma and cancer rates at all time highs and the knowledge that the earth has limited resources, doesn't it make sense to conserve what we have and work toward cleaner air whether you believe the whole global warming theory or not? I drive by a factory every day that pumps out orange smoke ...yeah, orange. People are all worried about second hand smoke from cigarettes and transfats in restaurants but nobody does anything about this orange smoke pumping factory. Nobody can convince me that an orange smoke pumping factory is a good thing.

Dee are you driving by the Riverview Poop Factory or the Detroit one? Both kind of scare me, especially since that one time with the Riverview accident.

Unless we get our usual annual snowstorm, I'll be believing in Global Warming.

There are probably some people in Mississippi who would argue that the weather is displaying obvious global warming...

....yeah, ask 'em in Biloxi.

Well, on the other side of that though, didn't it snow in central mississippi the other day?

Yeah, some of my friends at Ole Miss called and told me, didn't realize that was what you were talking about.

Well, I'm sure you're right about the coastal folks though. Although I don't think a single hurricane says anything. If Katrina had landed in Destin it would have merely been another Ivan or Opal.

agreed.

I was talking about one of them under the Rouge River Bridge. However, I could smell the poop factory from Fort St. the other day.. wind must have been blowing the wrong way that day. My kids asked me that day "Is it really a poop factory?" because I always call it that..lol. I told them it's a waste water treatment plant. All these years they thought I meant that they made poop there and couldn't figure out why...

When I was in Brownstown, across from the Mazda plant, we would get nasty paint smells, especially on hot days and our pool got this brown grit in it all time. Had to vacuum that pool more than any other I've seen.

When I worked at Riverside Hospital, we had to clean the steel factory dust off of our cars at the end of the work day, when McLouth was open.

Oh Yeah, ask DeltAlum, LXAALum, Trey in NC, those is Texas and parts North!

Oh, still snow in KC! Most snow is In Feb.

45 Fri. 28 on Sunday!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/...al_warming.png

credit goes to http://www.xkcd.com

I concur!

I believe it's real.

I believe in Santa Clause.

Global Warming...such a politicized issue.

Is the world getting a little more tropical? Maybe, however anyone that believes there is actual scientific data proving that humans are the reason it's getting warmer is an unthinking lemming that should follow Al Gore straight to hell.

Interesting views from the Editorial/Op-Ed pages on matter:
http://cagle.com/news/GlobalWarming07/main.asp
http://cagle.com/news/WackyWeather/main.asp

Kind of an old thread but I didn't want to make a new one.

So did anyone watch "Exposed: A Climate of Fear" on HNN last night?

It was nice to see the other side of the coin being represented for once.

what the hell is HNN?

Headline News Network

It is an extension of CNN and basically it keeps repeating the major news stories from the day over and over. It usually takes about 45mins before it loops.

Exposed: A Climate of Fear is up on youtube. It's worth a look regardless of what side of the debate you stand.

After reading State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I am very hesitant to put faith in the global warming theory; at the same time, I do not deny that we need to be more careful with the earth and make some changes to preserve it. While the book itself is purely fiction, the footnotes, graphs, and studies further prove that this theory is just a theory. I suggest this book to everyone, because whether you believe in the theory of global warming or not, the possibilities presented in this book are very, very real. The "threat" of global warming is only intensified by politicians and celebrities looking for causes to support and end up throwing their money at it to make themselves feel a little bit better about needlessly travelling around the world in their jets that cause 100x more damage than my SUV (that they also seem to drive when their little hybrids aren't convenient).

Personally I'd have to call anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming/Human Influenced Climate Change as nuts... like anti-Evolution nuts - people more influenced by ideology than a rational and objective view. However I do understand why there are many in the US that don't believe it, simply because the issue has been seized upon by political factions and turned into a partisan issue, which is a shame since the partisan climate hinders any constructive debate.

One thing that I learned in taking courses on the life sciences or even Archaeology is that the ecology and climate is a finely balanced system, where humans can and have messed it up numerous times through their actions - so why should now be any different given the greater influence man has now (numbers, industry, habitation zones, ecological exploitation, etc.)? The only reason I can point to is political.

good call

RA, there is no proven human link to Global Warming. It doesn't exist. There haven't been any tests outside of mathematical models to legitimize the theories on human contributions to Global Warming/increasing CO2 levels.

I mean, what do you say to the scientists and astrophysicists that admit that there is a greenhouse effect, but that it is minor and difficult to detect. There are plenty of these people that have some pretty good evidence that can legitimately connect warming/cooling to natural causes and variations in the climate. Do you call them nuts too? I don't.

People with no understanding of science are cute. But personally I think the cutest thing about global warming is the Exxon subsidization of the American Enterprise Institute when it provided cash to scientists to disprove global warming.

-Rudey

RA, just because Global Warming has become a political issue does not mean that everyone should automatically believe in it. Do your own research, and don't rely on the media to do the work for you.

Should I think you're nuts because you DO believe in Global Warming? No, I think you are misinformed and have based your opinion on information that is skewed, and perhaps just plain wrong.

You are correct in saying that climate (and ultimately the environment) are finely balanced systems, but those very systems adjust themselves to remained balance-- in a way that goes far beyond ANY scientific knowledge at this point. No scientist can accurately predict warming, cooling, or stable temperatures. Period. The people we see in the media who call for drastic measures of change are PAID scientists who were hired by people who WANT to find a problem.

What they can do though, is present proven information fairly and accurately; this, unfortunately, rarely happens.

People are too often making environmental changes out to be a black and white issue; it either is global warming, or it's not. It's just not true. There are too many possibilities that affect these "facts" to make them 100% true or false. Data is sparse and usually does not take into account other factors that could affect their findings. They simply sample select areas where slight warming (despite the cause) is recorded, call these facts, and publish them. It is these published "facts" that too many people rely on to form their opinions.

Both sides rely heavily on sponsored research, so I don't think this point really supports your side as much as it really just points out what has quickly become my takeaway on the issue: there is no real certainty either way.

It is not difficult to believe that human consumption of fossil fuels has a detrimental effect on the environment, and it is also not hard to understand that the natural buffering of the environment can help obviate much of the issue.

The honest-to-God truth, however, is that our understanding of global weather is simply sparse - we can't really accurately predict weather, and this is mostly based on difficulty examining the root phenomena that lead to weather patterns. However, absence of evidence is clearly not evidence of absence - it's vital to improve our baseline understanding, so we can stop this sort of politicized and annoying back-and-forth where neither side gives credence to the other's evidence.

I hated when many people jumped on to the global warming bandwagon after hurricane katrina hit new orleans. one major hurricane (or several) doesn't mean global warming exists. :mad: