Piece on Global Cooling

You could point to a hundred such articles and you wouldn't convince believers that global warming is a scam. And by the way, it's now called "climate change". It was too easy to discredit global warming by pointing to cool weather. By calling it climate change, any weather (hot, cold, windy, rainy, dry, etc) that appears unusual can now be attributed to human activities. How's that for inspired manipulation?

 

I haven't read the article yet but I believe that obviously there is a change in our climate all over the world but I don't think that all of it can be blamed on human activity. Yeah, some of it can, just not all of it.

People cannot expect the same weather patterns to remain the same for ever...

 

Hi.

As someone having a degree in engineering and a curiosity towards the ecosystem as a whole, my take is that human activity has virtually no effect on global weather in either direction on a long scale. The problem for the most is that there's no profits in anything long scale, so we reduce them to the shorter than short scale and reap the fruits.

A large scale forest fire like we have had for millions of years release quite a bit harmful gasses up to the athmosphere due to the uncontrolled burning. The problem isn't that much the CO2 but NOX. But both of those are either directly or indirectly "food" for the flora.

The untrapping of trapped carbon compounds can also be seen as a bad thing but again, "food" for the flora.

A medium sized volcano eruption can release the same amount of gasses and particles up to the athmosphere as the human race can in a year or a two.

The meteorites that possibly shaped the earth to have the athmosphere we have now, probably did some damage along the way too.

The earth and its flora and fauna will survive until our sun goes nova, it's up to us to adapt to survive that long with her. Which I very much doubt.

Regards
Sam

 

The global climate is changing because you touch yourself

 

If that were the case my house would have combusted already.

 

Wait wait...you're quoting an article from "Pravda"?? That's like a Russian version of the national enquirer/random supermarket tabloid, you realize that, right?
I mean, it's not impossible that the article contains some truth but that source is a known dud.

 

If somebody really wants to believe something because it reinforces their current view of the world, then they'll find a way - any way - to genuinely believe it. They'll fall for any half-baked, unauthoritative, unscientific, agenda-driven drivel if it suits their purposes and enables them to feel justified in their opinions without actually having to think. If they can support their paranoia by convincing themselves that the evil scientific establishment is conspiring against "the people" for some ulterior purpose, then so much the better.

 

The thing with climate change is that we simply don't know enough about it to know what the effects are going to be. To pretend that we do is simply asinine. For every study that says we're doomed to a horrible death, a new study pops up showing a previously unknown method of correction by dear old mother nature.

Simply put, the earth will correct itself. There are fail safes put in place that we aren't even aware of yet.

 

I agree that the Earth will "correct itself" if you mean that life will go on regardless of what we do. That's what generally happens. But I'm interested in what you mean by "fail safes put in place". By whom?

 

There is so much garbage information on climate change in the media that's driven by an agenda that it's almost impossible to find any information that has any scientific credibility. All the agenda driven stuff, whether it's from the "It's the greatest crisis in the history of the Earth!" people or the "Man cannot affect the environment, and that's that." people, is pushing out all the genuine scientific information while grossly abusing science in an effort to make themselves look legitimate.

The fact is that human activity does have some affect on our environment and it's important to figure out quantitatively just what that affect is. A good place to start learning about it (although there are plenty of other places) is here at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/


The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization and their reports are scientifically untenable although they are misrepresented as being scientific.

Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is crisis mongering junk science at its worst, and the fact that it's being shown in thousands of public schools in science class will hurt the reputation of science for a long time to come.

On the flip side, there is nothing scientific about stating that humans cannot affect the environment. Solid scientific evidence shows that the burning of fossil fuels does lead to some changes in climate on a global scale.

Again, it's important to not buy into the agenda driven rhetoric from either "side" of the issue but to take the initiative to look at what the science is really saying. Unfortunatley, at this point, climatologists have so many differnt opinions on the issue because it's so complex and inherently difficult to study. This makes misappropriation of their conclusions and abuse of their findings easy to perpetuate in the media.

 

Virtually everything in nature is cyclic in one way or another. The earth is no different.
I agree with the "fail safes" idea, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the human race has fail safes, just the earth.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that human activity has affected climate. Plain and simple.

Will the earth correct itself? Of course. Will we be around to see it if we do nothing? Not likely...and if we are it won't be pleasant.

To look at this as a polarized issue is selling yourself short. I'm confident that you're smarter than that - but need to realize it for yourself.

Air, soil, and water quality have caused severe health problems for peopl earound the world, have contributed to the eradication of many species, and birth defects on others.

Carbon taxation is not only realistic, but it's fair and intelligent. If you want to get around it, buy local. Support a sustainable economy.

This isn't only good for the environment, but for the economy.

If you are against buying local because you support truck drivers and fear that this will adversely affect logistic services, then push for green technology. Since I don't see electric 18 wheelers or train trucks in our near future, I'd rather get my vegetables at a farmer's market, buy eggs from the farmer down the road

There are so many things that could be done to keep our air and water clean that would offset a carbon tax.

Why try to fight it instead of supporting ways to pay less of it?

Are you really happy being poisoned by the air you breathe and water you drink and sold either a bunch of things or a constantly rolling line of crap you don't need?

"make sure your officials know you're not going to pay for something that's been fabricated for the purpose of bleeding us for even MORE of our paychecks."

If you like your big screen TV, I suggest getting a netflix membership and tossing out your cable box. CSI is way better without the commercials.

 

Because there is a pattern in human history of crisis mongers getting rich off of the fears of gullible people. The way to tell the difference between legitimate concerns and pseudoscientific bunk it to apply some proper skepticism and demand compelling evidence.

 

Hey.. it's about darn time that the so-far dominate side of this "world crisis" has finally started conceding some ground in the other direction. Al Gore's book was "junk science?" Nawww.. why give "junk" such a negative image.. Al Gore's book was actually hysteria in book form, which by the way killed quite a few innocent "forest citizens" (i.e.) trees in the process... way-to-go big Al...

 

[Pirate]

Watch it there matey... Them freepers be thinkin the same thing about the other side of yer argument.

[/Pirate]

 

I guess this is like the ice age back in the 70's.. Right?

 

Humans were around before the glaciers froze first time around. And they walked across to America from Asia. It's no coincidence native Americans have mongoloid features. We are not going to be wiped out that easily. Sure, good percentage might run into some trouble, but humanity as a whole will still survive and adapt. We might even evolve into something different...

 

This version is just as possible as the other.