Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SwedishAdvocate]

Media is all about ratings. A significant fraction of Americans don't accept climate change/global warming, and they're likely to tune out media that suggests otherwise.

I know!!!!! A few thousand years ago, I have been told there was a sheet of ice over my location that was over a mile thick!!! And now it is gone. :-(. I have read that this cycle (warm/cold/warm/cold has been going on forever.

Like I posted not that far up in this thread; this list:

skepticalscience.com | Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says - Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

…at skepticalscience.com is really, really useful.

And lo and behold!

No. 14 on that list:

#14 Are we heading into a new Ice Age? | skepticalscience.com

 

[montgom626]

Like I posted not that far up in this thread; this list:

No. 14 on that list:

#14 Are we heading into a new Ice Age? | skepticalscience.com

The same experts that now talk about the current climate theory, back in 1980s were adamant that we were heading into another ice age. Fads come and go??? When Lake Michigan overflowed it's shores, the "experts" said it would take a least a decade for the water to recede. I lived on the shore of Lake Michigan at that time. It took one year for the water to recede.

 

[Doug_G]

The same experts that now talk about the current climate theory, back in 1980s were adamant that we were heading into another ice age.

Urban legend, easily rebutted. RealClimate: The global cooling myth

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

The same experts that now talk about the current climate theory, back in 1980s were adamant that we were heading into another ice age. Fads come and go??? When Lake Michigan overflowed it's shores, the "experts" said it would take a least a decade for the water to recede. I lived on the shore of Lake Michigan at that time. It took one year for the water to recede.

I don’t know; maybe this will come as a surprise, but I’m not going to take your word for it when it comes to any of those statements.

And as it were – it turned out you were dead wrong about one of them – as Doug_G points out.

I’ve never heard about that Lake Michigan episode before – I guess it could very well be perfectly true – but we're not talking about Lake Michigan here. We’re talking about The Entire Planet’s global sea-level. Here it is:

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ACECRC ::

Scroll down to the second part of that page. It’s up ~23 cm / 9 inches so far in the last 130 years!

Look at that graph.

Where do you think that sea-level is going?

 

[montgom626]

I don’t know; maybe this will come as a surprise, but I’m not going to take your word for it when it comes to any of those statements.

I would not expect anyone to take my word for it. Climate change proponents are like religious zealots and it has always been like that. Who am I to question those beliefs?

 

[JRP3]

Right, and the people who deny the possibility, even in the face of evidence, aren't like religious zealots?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I would not expect anyone to take my word for it. Climate change proponents are like religious zealots and it has always been like that. Who am I to question those beliefs?

Right, and the people who deny the possibility, even in the face of evidence, aren't like religious zealots?

Precisely!


Or like this:

I would not expect anyone to take my word for it. Climate change proponents are like religious zealots and it has always been like that. Who am I to question those beliefs?

Oh really now!

In what way? Please do tell…

To me that is such an utterly and truly false analogy, and here is why:

There is not a single shred of evidence in support for any religion. Period.


But as you can see if you bother to take a look, there is evidence for Man Made Climate Change:

– The CO2-level in both the atmosphere and in the ocean is rising.

– The global average temperature is rising. Both in the atmosphere and in the ocean.

– And, the sea-level is rising.


See the difference:

Religion: Zero evidence.

Man Made Climate Change: Plenty of scientific evidence.


The real question is:

What are you basing your position on?

It sure isn’t scientific evidence!

So who is it that really is the religious zealot?


Edit:

Full disclosure with regards to religion: I’m an atheist.

 

[dhrivnak]

Precisely!

There is not a single shred of evidence in support for any religion. Period.

Full disclosure with regards to religion: I’m an atheist.

While I do believe in the overwhelming evidence for global warming, I also believe very much in God. Jesus is a historical fact.

I find it amazing that a group of 12 "nobody" men (the Apostles plus Paul) were very willing to die horrible deaths rather disburse or hide right after the Crucifixion.

But we are heading off topic.

Not sure it was noted but is seems that November temperature was the hottest on record.

State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces during November was record highest for November, at 56.60°F (13.68°C) or 1.40°F (0.78°C) above the 20th century average. The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.13°F (0.07°C).

 

[montgom626]

Right, and the people who deny the possibility, even in the face of evidence, aren't like religious zealots?

Exactly. No difference.

 

[Jack6591]

It bothers me that we are focused on climate change. So much more is at play. The vanishing of the bees. The acidification of the oceans and the dying of coral reefs. Our planet is sick on many levels.

 

[Doug_G]

It bothers me that we are focused on climate change.

The acidification of the oceans and the dying of coral reefs.

These are the same problem, in that they are both caused by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I find it a bit odd that the second item doesn't receive more attention, because it is also a looming large-scale disaster, and there's no denying that we are responsible.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ Jesus is a historical fact. /...

Respectfully, but also honestly (and albeit off-topic):

Is he? Where has that been established? And even if there was a man named Jesus, where is the evidence that he was anything else than a mere mortal – not in any way different from you and me?


- - - Updated - - -

It bothers me that we are focused on climate change. So much more is at play. The vanishing of the bees. [My underline.] /…/ Our planet is sick on many levels.

As I understand it, the mystery of why bees have been vanishing has been solved. As always (ok, almost), we humans are the cause. And to be more precise: Humans using pesticides containing neonicotinoid chemicals in agriculture. See for example here:

'Wildlife at risk' from incoming ban on pesticide linked to bee deaths | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[JRP3]

While I do believe in the overwhelming evidence for global warming, I also believe very much in God. Jesus is a historical fact.

I find it amazing that a group of 12 "nobody" men (the Apostles plus Paul) were very willing to die horrible deaths rather disburse or hide right after the Crucifixion.

The existence, or not, of a man named Jesus is in no way proof of god. I'd also point out that many men were willing to die for Osama Bin Laden as well. Besides, many other religions, different than yours, don't believe Jesus was the son of god. So we are left with no proof at all of the existence of some sort of supreme being.

 

[montgom626]

“CO-two-ers”

Science told us for years that estrogen was good for women. Prevented bone fractures, prevented dementia, etc. Many folks objected to those conclusions and were attacked by the true believers for suggesting otherwise. Now we know estrogen never helped with any of the above.

Science told us for decades that self breast exam (SBE) was required for good breast health. We even had buddy check. We taught women self breast exam. Science now tells us that SBE is bad. SBE is of no value. It does more harm than good. People who objected with the mantra of SBE being “good” were ostracized. The true believers said that folks who objected to SBE were anti-woman.

Low dose aspirin (baby aspirin, 81mg) for women. There are still folks who believe it works on women to prevent heart attacks. There are doctors who will become incensed if you tell them otherwise. Many women still get low dose aspirin for heart health. It does nothing except harm.

Science told us that the world was flat. If you disagreed, you were persecuted.

Ibuprofen (AKA Motrin an NSAID). People believe it is safe. Not true. Any NSAID can ruin your kidneys, can cause bleeding ulcers, increase blood clots in your coronary arteries and when combined with low dose aspirin in men, increase risk of bleeding and increase your risk of a heart attack.

The yearly routine rectal exam (finger in your butt) for healthy men to check their prostate was dogma in medicine. We now know that it is another false god. Many healthy men demand the rectal exam and are convinced it will help them.

Science told us that combining two cholesterol lowering drugs worked better than one. Science told us that a “statin” and niacin resulted in fewer heart attacks. It was scientific dogma for decades. If you did not use two drugs you were a bad doctor. Some of us objected. Those who objected were attacked by the experts. Now, we now that only the use of one drug, a statin drug, works. Niacin is a waste of time. Good thing the bullies lost or we would still be taking two drugs.

It used to be dogma in medicine that women who had a hysterectomy for bleeding indications only had to have yearly pap smears. It was malpractice to do not do the cuff Pap smear. Complete waste of time. The believers still do the Pap smear.

May folks in Western Society believe that taking vitamins like E, D, B, and C will prevent all manner of illness. Improve their memories, improve prostate health, etc. There are entire industries based upon this baloney. Take your vitamins, but you are wasting your money. But try telling vitamin believers that they are wrong and wait to be attacked.

Science can be just another religion. Another false god if you close your eyes to alternate opinions. Dogmatic “CO-two-ers” refuse to open their eyes to anyone who voices an opinion other than the one they endorse. Dogmatic “CO-two-ers” attack anyone who disagrees.


The problem with “science” is that he blinds the believers. The believers refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them and their brand of belief. Any time the dogmatic “CO-two-ers” lash out at folks who think the issues are more complicated than just CO2, I am reminded of all the science that has been found to be wanting.

 

[tigerade]

Science can be just another religion.

No, just no.

The problem with “science” is that he blinds the believers. The believers refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them and their brand of belief. Any time the dogmatic “CO-two-ers” lash out at folks who think the issues are more complicated than just CO2, I am reminded of all the science that has been found to be wanting.

So much ignorance in such a short statement. Come back when you have something educated to say.

I created this thread here just for you. You don't even have to thank me:

Science Myth Debunking: General Discussion

 

[JRP3]

The problem with “science” is that he blinds the believers. The believers refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them and their brand of belief. Any time the dogmatic “CO-two-ers” lash out at folks who think the issues are more complicated than just CO2, I am reminded of all the science that has been found to be wanting.

Your mistake is assuming past errors invalidates the scientific method, when in fact the scientific method is based on learning from those errors. There are no CO2 "believers", there are people who agree that the current evidence supports the strong possibility of man made influence on our atmosphere and climate. The real "believers" are the denialists who ignore the evidence because it may force them to change some of their behaviors.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

What tigerade and JRP3 wrote. And:

…/ Science told us that the world was flat. If you disagreed, you were persecuted. […

Finding something about this statement seems ’challenging’. But, when it comes to the concept of heliocentrism – the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System – then there is a well documented episode:

The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, during which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy.[1]

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. He went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619. He argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth, and promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543).

Following mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life. [My underline.]


Source:

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for estrogen and vitamins I would probably side with you. Regarding the rest – that I don’t know enough about to comment on…

 

[Doug_G]

Science told us that the world was flat. If you disagreed, you were persecuted.

Did you really "say" that with a straight face? The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round and even managed to measure its diameter circa 200 BC.

Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not aware of any historical references about anyone being persecuted for thinking the Earth was round. Galileo was persecuted for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but HE was a scientist and he was persecuted by the church.

All scientific theories must be falsifiable. Religion is not. The CO2 hypothesis is falsifiable in principle... however the evidence is pointing in its favor in a big way.

 

[ggr]

Science told us that the world was flat. If you disagreed, you were persecuted.

Rubbish. Persecuted by whom? The hordes of raging scientists? No, persecuted by the prevailing religions and rulers of the times (often the same group of people). The ancient Greeks, culminating with Archimedes, measured the curvature of the earth fairly accurately; this is difficult to do when the earth is flat. Sailors had known even before this that the world was curved, although most hadn't made the leap to imagining a spheroid.

 

[Doug_G]

Here's the most credible source: Hare We Go - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "She's flat like your head!"