Science News: Yep, globabl warming is man's fault

[MonkeyF0cker]

oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal are broad-scale clean energy sources

nothing wrong with looking at new energy sources, nothing wrong with trying to improve our current ones.

but setting government regulations to force alternative methods be used, or giving irrational government funding to develop them is the downside.

so what is the upside?

Coal is not clean unless clean-coal emissions standards are enforced and even then it is not entirely clean, albeit improved. Nuclear energy is not a worldwide solution, unless of course you'd like rogue third world countries having nuclear technology and sending our nuclear waste into space. Oil is certainly not clean. Ever heard of the Exxon-Valdez? If you really think it's clean, turn on your car and suck on the tailpipe for a few minutes and let me know how clean it really is. The upsides include creating an American product that is highly marketable to the rest of the world, creating an influx of new jobs in a high demand industry, dispelling harmful emissions into the atmosphere, and removing our dependence on foreign oil. I don't see how the disadvantages can plausibly be argued to outweigh the negatives...

[losturmarbles]

data, who cares who bets on climate futures. if you look at all the super bowl future bets made, will that tell you who's going to win the superbowl?

for all of you that believe in global warming is man made, do yourself a favor and get the facts:

http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

[Data]

Data: Could you summarize? Were the climate change deniers refusing bets offered from scientists?

The deniers would not bet at pick'em. There is no market per se but from what I gather the current line is +0.15C to +0.2C per decade while per decade temperature increase is a moneyline favorite of at least -1000.

[Data]

data, who cares who bets on climate futures.

I do not know, I just thought this a gambling forum.

if you look at all the super bowl future bets made, will that tell you who's going to win the superbowl?

No, but the lines tell what team is more likely to win.

There is been research done and it was found that it is not the experts but the markets where the experts can put their money where their mouths are are the best predictors of anything. Based on the current market I expect a modest warming during my lifetime and act based on that.

[losturmarbles]

I do not know, I just thought this a gambling forum.



No, but the lines tell what team is more likely to win.

There is been research done and it was found that it is not the experts but the markets where the experts can put their money where their mouths are are the best predictors of anything. Based on the current market I expect a modest warming during my lifetime and act based on that.

i have no problem with that.

but i wouldnt bet a climate future bet, because
1> i don't believe there is a competent and impartial source to grade the wagers.
2> if you believe in man made global warming, then you expect it to get warmer, but if you don't believe in man made global warming then you don't have a persuasion to believe the temp will increase or decrease. us deniers would typically believe that the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, which don't follow computer models or irrelevant data. (no pun)

basically you capped the game as a blowout and i capped the game as a tossup, then you ask me why i'm not fading your bet.

[InTheHole]

50 percent of the experts disagree with you and the concept of global warning.I personally have difficulty coming to any conclusions from a dataset that represents perhaps .75% total climate days (65000 years)...the earth is 200 billion years old. Not even random...a inch is 10ft of time.

[InTheHole]

50 percent of the experts disagree with you and the concept of global warning.I personally have difficulty coming to any conclusions from a dataset that represents perhaps .75% total climate days (65000 years)...the earth is 200 billion years old. Not even random...a inch in 10ft of time.

[mathdotcom]

Noone has yet to explain to me why Roman periods had avg temperatures higher than they experience now. The overwhelming response is that it's due to climate trends. Extrapolating that the earth is heating up over the past 30-40 years of data is a joke. 30-40 years is a drop in the bucket. I know that's not all they're doing, but until I see evidence that shows the warming we've been experiencing isn't just due to randomness, count me in as a skeptic.

I've even heard the avg temperature on earth has dropped in some periods since 1990.

Justin7, the agenda isnt lower emissions to reduce global warming. It's to tax and hinder business, the arch-enemy of environmentalists that are invariably left-leaning.

Now even if global warming is happening, if you care about people, then you shouldn't be concerned about a 2" rise in sea level over the next 100 years. You should be concerned about the hundreds of millions of people that die from malaria when even simple measures could be used to prevent it, the fact that millions of people have no access to clean drinking water, etc.

Why save people 100 years from now when there are already hundreds of millions dying and suffering now?

It's all media hype and the biggest global warming pot-stirrers are the ones that don't feel a reason to exist unless they have a 'cause' to fight for.

[Justin7]

mathdotcom,

You're kidding, right?

[Boner_18]

I was an environmental science major in college and am not completely sold on global warming (more accurately "climate change").

First I fell, the sensationalism that surrounds the issue may be detrimental and may distract from any underlying problem. However, second, as far as economically minimal impact "solutions" can be found and implemented I'm in favor of better safe than sorry approaches.

My $.02

[nosniboR11]

Move this thread to a place were someone actually gives a crap.

[mathdotcom]

Global warming is the only issue where people on the other side of the coin get personally attacked and receive comments like "you're kidding, right?". A true scientist questions the facts he hears. I've heard plenty of arguments from both sides, and would rather take a chance on a couple inches of sea level rise over billions of dollars worth of anti-global warming regulations etc.

Justin7, even if global warming is an undeniable fact, you didn't say anything about my last comment on malaria/clean drinking water.

[InTheHole]

mathdotcom,

You're kidding, right?

If you're posting replies like this I recommend you stick to posting gambling related threads

[Chi_archie]

I think Math raises a good point, with the fact that there are numerous pressing life/death issues that no one thinks about, talks about, or acts upon. But bring up global warming and people have very strong opinions one way or the other and get all hot and bothered... meanwhile somthing like 20,000 people will die today from lack of food, water, and vaccinations

[InTheHole]

There are a lot of reasons for global warming. We are a small part of the equation giving the evidence and statistics we have to work with however it is irresponsible to blame it on man or invest (spend tax money) to attempt to counter it. The responsible thing to do is to encourage responsible use of resources and support technologies for countries outside the US.

[apk2k6]

I think Math raises a good point, with the fact that there are numerous pressing life/death issues that no one thinks about, talks about, or acts upon. But bring up global warming and people have very strong opinions one way or the other and get all hot and bothered... meanwhile somthing like 20,000 people will die today from lack of food, water, and vaccinations

This is why I support the welfare system here in the U.S.

I care about others that aren't as fortunate as I am. I'm not sure about the effects of pollution on climate change and how much of a priority it should be. I'm all for creating more efficient vehicles and reducing the way factories/large trucks and etc. blow huge amounts of smog into the air, because it most certainly can't be good for the environment.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it should be a top priority or not because I haven't really looked way into it, but other alternatives will help out.

[mathdotcom]

And even if it is occurring, is government capable of actually helping to stop it? And is it even worth it when India and China are polluting as they are?

The best way to deal with it is to help make poor areas of the world richer. Or to write them a cheque to use cleaner technology. I don't know about the USA, but Canada accounts for only 0.2% of global emissions. At least up here, it should be a non-issue.

Yet when I say stuff like this people look at me like I'm saying the earth is flat. Then I ask them if they have actually read the IPCC report, and of course, none of them have.

Justin7, since I assume you are a statistics man..... you should see the confidence intervals on some of their *key* findings.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm

[InTheHole]

And even if it is occurring, is government capable of actually helping to stop it? And is it even worth it when India and China are polluting as they are?

The best way to deal with it is to help make poor areas of the world richer. Or to write them a cheque to use cleaner technology. I don't know about the USA, but Canada accounts for only 0.2% of global emissions. At least up here, it should be a non-issue.

Yet when I say stuff like this people look at me like I'm saying the earth is flat. Then I ask them if they have actually read the IPCC report, and of course, none of them have.

Justin7, since I assume you are a statistics man..... you should see the confidence intervals on some of their *key* findings.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-cl...ange-water.htm

I'm tired of writing Fvcking checks...Give them the technolgy (i.e. bring the blueprints and actual equipment).

[Justin7]

The reason I post "you're kidding" is because I don't know of a single person who has read the research, and can say with a straight face that more likely than not, man is not contributing to global warming and climate change. If you want to argue facts, I'll be happy to. But it is very frustrating when people argue points with no understanding of either the facts or the science derived from that. When people make arguments while ignoring facts and science, I assume they are kidding.

[Justin7]

Re: malaria. Charity starts at home. When 1000's die in the US, I'll worry about it more. There are all kinds of worldwide problems we could fix if we apply our money and know-how. But face it - HIV, Malaria, starvation don't hurt the standard of living in the US (although there's arguments to be made).

Climate change will screw us 20 years from now.

I almost said civil war and governmental anarchy doesn't cost us... But it does. One impact of Somalia is piracy. Another for any area with a weak government is that it can become a breeding ground for "bad guys".

[InTheHole]

BUT there are tons of scientists who are EXPERTS (people who have spent their lives studying the subject) who would argue against you...

What is your dataset on climate you're using and how reliable is it? Would you be able to predict the success of your picks given a sample of .005%?

[InTheHole]

How does climate change on the Sun. Pluto and Jupiter impact that dataset? Sounds ridiculous ...too many extraneous variables to make a conclusion IMO

[pimike]

Tell that to all thse teams playinging in the cold and snow.


Another Librel bullshit

[InTheHole]

Come on ba ha rushy.

[mathdotcom]

Re: malaria. Charity starts at home. When 1000's die in the US, I'll worry about it more. There are all kinds of worldwide problems we could fix if we apply our money and know-how. But face it - HIV, Malaria, starvation don't hurt the standard of living in the US (although there's arguments to be made).

Climate change will screw us 20 years from now.

I almost said civil war and governmental anarchy doesn't cost us... But it does. One impact of Somalia is piracy. Another for any area with a weak government is that it can become a breeding ground for "bad guys".

You're kidding, right?
Show me facts where it will affect you significantly in 20 years. They predict a very small rise in sea level and a marginal temperature increase after *100 years*.

And you're the guy who wants to talk facts??

Since you're assuming the government can't do anything about aids or domestic homeless, why do you assume the government can do anything about global warming? I'm assuming you're advocating that government step in to do something, no?

[Justin7]

BUT there are tons of scientists who are EXPERTS (people who have spent their lives studying the subject) who would argue against you...

What is your dataset on climate you're using and how reliable is it? Would you be able to predict the success of your picks given a sample of .005%?

Most nations of the world accept global warming as a fact - 183 nations have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, which attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

From Sciencemag.org, of the last 928 peer-reviewed papers on climatology, 75% supported the consensus that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. NONE opposed that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

And from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[20][21][22] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[23] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[24] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[25] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

I have trouble taking anyone seriously who says there's no consensus on the existence of global warming. What to do about it, and the economic effects of preventing or allowing - that is a better topic for debate. But you can't even get there until you identify the problem, and recognize its reality.

[InTheHole]

How many of those nations would be bound by the agreement?

[InTheHole]

Greenhouse gases...where do they come from?

Car engines? Yes...where else?

[InTheHole]

Take me seriously

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Justin7]

You're kidding, right?
Show me facts where it will affect you significantly in 20 years. They predict a very small rise in sea level and a marginal temperature increase after *100 years*.

And you're the guy who wants to talk facts??

Since you're assuming the government can't do anything about aids or domestic homeless, why do you assume the government can do anything about global warming? I'm assuming you're advocating that government step in to do something, no?

If the warming continues at the past rate (and does not accelerate), you're likely to see that mean global temperature go up by about 1/3 a degree celcius. This will hurt some areas, and help others.

I'll concede 20 years is too short for "widespread screwing" if the heating doesn't accelarete. It will be isolated as some key farming areas become unproductive, and some cities either become unihabitable to to rising sea, or require considerable expense to raise levies.

[Justin7]

Since you're assuming the government can't do anything about aids or domestic homeless, why do you assume the government can do anything about global warming? I'm assuming you're advocating that government step in to do something, no?

I never said that. The government could deal with HIV in Africa, or focus on homeless in the US. But it isn't a priority, so they won't. If there is no economic or political benefit, don't expect our government to do it.

[pimike]

Justin you are numbers minded. It affects your thinking. Maybe instead of an attorney u should have been an enginner.


If you like numbers check out familyradio.com


May 21, 2011 the world will be ended by God. A lot of numbers in the Bible to calculate this.

[InTheHole]

5/21/2011?

[mathdotcom]

1) you said 180 something nations signed kyoto. sorry, 180 politicians signed kyoto. And we all know how smart politicians are, and that they never do things for show. How many acted on Kyoto? Barely any.

2) 75% supported the claim that global warming is man-made. I am sure many only marginally concluded that. 75% doesn't sound like a consensus to me. Not enough of a consensus to radically change how our economy works.

3) Even if 100% supported it, the consequences are vastly overstated. In the IPCC it takes about inches of sea level rise and marginal increases in temperature. Like 1 degree celcius.

4) Many professors who are global warming skeptics don't come out as skeptics because it is not worth getting attacked and becoming an outcast.

5) There are all these side issues to, even if global warming is occurring,
a) is it even a bad thing?
b) should we do anything about it?
c) if so, what?
In my view we're not even past agreeing it exists, let alone how bad it is. Like you said, it will benefit some areas.

I suggest you buy some beach property in the Canadian arctic

[Justin7]

Justin you are numbers minded. It affects your thinking. Maybe instead of an attorney u should have been an enginner.

Actually, I studied computer engineering and math before law