Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[axidgl]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by axidgl

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.