OT: I know how to solve global warming

[AngleWyrm]

Thunderstorms...Florida has a whole lot of thunder storms, and they say it's because it's a sand bar that tosses up wet salty silicon dust into the air.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

What's needed is scientific studies. Right now we have speculation.

[Phoenix-D]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
What's needed is scientific studies. Right now we have speculation.

We've got studies. People just like to ignore them, or in the case of the Bush administration, censor them.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Which sides' studies?

[Phoenix-D]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Which sides' studies?

If you're doing science properly there's no such thing.

Sadly that almost never happens. In this case the "global warming exists, here's the proof" studies.

[AMF]

Exactly!

[AMF]

Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The fact of the matter is: there is NO debate on global warming. The only debate that exists is in the eyes of politicians, economists, and political pundits - all of whom have a vested or personal interest in stating that global warming is a hoax, or not a big deal.

The VAST majority of scientists who have studied the various facets of this issue have all come to the same conclusion: the globe is warming, and humans are largely responsible, in one fashion or another. Exactly HOW human activity causes global warming is a legitimate topic for debate, but WHETHER OR NOT humans greatly contribute to global warming is NOT. Sorry if this is inconvienent for some people to hear, but frankly, that's life. Being able to change one's opinion in the face of evidence is a sign of maturity.

But if you're not willing to honestly listen to the experts, then I'll tell you what: go and spend years to get a PhD in atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, or some other related field, and THEN spend a decade studying global warming. THEN, and ONLY THEN do you have the right to spout off on this issue. Until then, shut the heck up. You're just making yourself look foolish and helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases.

If you want to take the time to actually have an informed opinion (and not just an opinion that reinforces what you WANT to believe), then here are some places to start:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
A bunch of wiki pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

You want to talk about the temperature record? Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...erature_record

Are the EXACT links between human activity and global warming known? Not per se - the causal link between human activity and global warming is clear, but exactly how human activity transmits to higher temperatures is a very complex matter. But reality is complex, and there is no more complex a system then the planet's climate. And, you will almost never find, in any scientific field, a direct link between cause and effect. It's just the way science works (look up Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Carl Hempel etc...if you want to know more)

But just because it is a complex issue doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist, no matter how much people whinge and cry. Sorry.

But, hey, don't really worry about it. It's not like we're talking about the future of the entire planet or anything. I mean, I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet. Makes sense to me. Probably too late anyways, so why even worry about it. After all, probably some conspiracy by those pesky scientists. Not like they're interested in the truth. I'd much rather rely on the opinions of the extremely well informed voting public or the news-radio hosts - they're ALWAYS more objective.

AMF

[Renegade 13]

So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.


You have conveniently failed to mention a crucial fact; many theories have, over the centuries, fallen by the wayside as the "anomalies" you mention have not been able to be reconciled to fit with the theory. Saying that it is completely irrelevant that the Earth has been known to be warmer than today in the recent past (geologically speaking), is totally and utterly foolish. If a scientific theory can not explain anomalies that are proven to exist, then that theory must be examined very carefully, to determine whether or not it should be considered a valid theory anymore.

The fact that the Earth has been warmer in the past can not be casually dismissed. This data and the current theories (yes, theories, there is more than the one you are promoting) must be reconciled, or else the current theories must be modified. That is the scientific process.

PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years

Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.


Now excuse my language, but this statement really pisses me off, and I'm not someone prone to anger. I am not ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, as you said. I have done a significant amount of reading into the matters, and have found none of the theories to be satisfactory, and the amount of freaking out that some people do about "global warming" to be completely out of proportion. It seems to me as though the proponants of global warming are the ones who have blinded themselves to the existance of other possibilities, such as natural cycles of warming and cooling. It would seem you are ignoring all but what you want to see.

Oh, and perhaps you should be taking a look at that link of yours, not just looking at the pretty pictures. In particular, take a look at the subheading "Uncertainties and Limitations" and "Criticisms". Just in case you don't take the time to take a look, here's a quote:

"Expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400...more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached."
Thus the theory that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the last 1000 years can no longer be supported at present state of scientific knowledge.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling someone ignorant when you have absolutely no reason to do so, and have no idea of how much they do or do not know, is completely uncalled for. I have deleted the personal attacks from what I was going to post, and I suggest you do the same to your post, in the interests of civilized conversation.

PS: Am I to gather that you consider climatologists who do not believe the popular theory of global warming are ignorant as well? I guarantee you, they are much better versed in the matter than either you or I. Yet they have their reservations...how can this be? Perhaps they're scientists, and have noticed that the theory of global warming has some gaping holes in it? Could it be? [/sarcasm]