Global warming/antiglobal warming=warring religions?

[Moontanman]

The whole global warming thing has gotten out of hand here at hypo (in my opinion) to the point it seems like more of a battle of, if not religions then egos at least.

 

So I am going to play both ends against the middle and ask a few questions. The whole idea of global warming in indeed a theory, as is the anti global warmers, both sides are spouting evidence but neither side can really say they are absolutely right or wrong, just more right or more wrong.

 

i know that in science a theory is better than just an idea someone has but I have to ask this. All theories have problems, from relativity to quantum mechanics none of them are perfect. I want to ask both sides to switch for a few and think of how you would argue the other way.

 

To the global warming people I ask, what is your theory's worst problems?

 

to the anti global warmers i ask the same, what part of global warming make you doubt your idea is correct?

 

Lets look at it inside out and see if they look different. Can anyone let go of their pet argument and take a hard look at their pet ideas and see anything that makes them wonder if only for a few seconds? Can we get past the desire to be correct and try to see why the other side sees you as wrong? Can you admit you don't have 100% of the info? Is the data being manipulated by both side to some extent?

 

Don't bite my head off, take a hard look at what is going on, lets play nice...

[BrianG]

That's a great idea, I'll play.

 

The worst problem for skeptics (me), the Keeling Curve.

 

The Keeling Curve is appears so artificial, a constant growth. [ce]CO_2[/ce] is growing in the air. It looks like something that just has to crash. It's downright scary

[Moontanman]

The keeling curve is impressive, hard to argue CO2 isn't increasing.

 

How does this relate to the proposed idea of CO2 levels in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period or the early Holocene?

 

at the beginning of the nineteenth century.[8] However, analyses of stomatal frequency in tree leaves indicate that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration may have reached 320 ppmv during the Medieval Warm Period (800–1300 CE) and 350 ppmv during the early Holocene.[

[BrianG]

And then there's the pale blue marble argument :naughty:, I wish I could post pictures. I play off the "delicate thin veil" of atmosphere observation as an issue of perspective, but it is damn persuasive and my counter is also a matter of "feet on the ground" perspective. Those remote photos from space are a loser from my point of view.

[Moontanman]

And then there's the pale blue marble argument :naughty:, I wish I could post pictures. I play off the "delicate thin veil" of atmosphere observation as an issue of perspective, but it is damn persuasive and my counter is also an issue of "feet on the ground" perspective. Those remote photos from space are a loser from my point of view.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, does it support your ideas or make you feel like you might be wrong. Please elaborate. (by the way in this thread I'm the only one who gets to believe both ways:evil:)

[Donk]

The evidence looks pretty solid to me, so I can't really play.

 

I do get annoyed by the people who take extrapolation too far, talking of the death of the planet. We're rapidly moving out of the "Goldilocks Zone" that brought us to mastery of the world, but life will go on. Change brings evolution, and Earth will (eventually) be all the better for it.

 

Death of the planet? It won't even lead to the death of the human race. It's likely to lead to a lot of suffering and death for individuals, but there are too damn many of us right now - that's one reason we're having these problems.

 

I like the punctuated equilibrium theory:

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little evolutionary change for most of their geological history (in an extended state called stasis). When evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis). Cladogenesis is simply the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

In easy times, any mutation that isn't immediately lethal stands a good chance of surving. The gene pool widens. When conditions change, you get selective pressures which lead to the fittest surviving. We could finish up a whole lot smarter out of this! :phones:

 

As I say, I can't really play the game. But I don't think this particular global catastrophe is going to be all bad. :naughty:

[BrianG]

The evidence looks pretty solid to me, so I can't really play.

 

Awww, c'mon. Let's play.

 

 

As I say, I can't really play the game. But I don't think this particular global catastrophe is going to be all bad. :evil:

 

I fear catastrophic climate change. I don't want to get to the "tipping point". The world has been destroyed many times in the past, I'm glad Earth abides.

 

The Greenhouse effect of GHG's (is that a circular argument?) shows increased [ce]CO_2[/ce] causes increased climate warming. How much? I don't know, but I do know increased [ce]CO_2[/ce] warms the climate.

[Moontanman]

The evidence looks pretty solid to me, so I can't really play.

 

I do get annoyed by the people who take extrapolation too far, talking of the death of the planet. We're rapidly moving out of the "Goldilocks Zone" that brought us to mastery of the world, but life will go on. Change brings evolution, and Earth will (eventually) be all the better for it.

 

Death of the planet? It won't even lead to the death of the human race. It's likely to lead to a lot of suffering and death for individuals, but there are too damn many of us right now - that's one reason we're having these problems.

 

I like the punctuated equilibrium theory:

 

In easy times, any mutation that isn't immediately lethal stands a good chance of surving. The gene pool widens. When conditions change, you get selective pressures which lead to the fittest surviving. We could finish up a whole lot smarter out of this! :phones:

 

As I say, I can't really play the game. But I don't think this particular global catastrophe is going to be all bad. :naughty:

 

I understand what you mean, most of my problems with global warming have more to do with the grossly exaggerated claims of the Earth is going to be the new Venus or the oceans are acid or all life is going to extinct or the Earth has to stay at one temp or the Earth has to be cold. One thing you can be sure of is the Earth does not stay the same. Human civilization has developed during an almost charmed time as far as Earth weather is concerned. a nice warm interglacial period. We might be adding to or even taking away from the trends that might be occurring if we weren't here but one thing is for sure the Earth is going to change.

[BrianG]

The Earth always changes, that's bad from a skeptics point of view. I can't argue against climate change.

 

p.s. I can't post on your Smurf thread. Smurf sex, doing it 'till your blue in the face.

[Moontanman]

 

 

I fear catastrophic climate change. I don't want to get to the "tipping point". The world has been destroyed many times in the past, I'm glad Earth abides.

 

If you feel that way then I can't imagine why you would be a global warming skeptic. BTW the world has never been destroyed, well not since the formation of the moon, if it had then we wouldn't be here.

 

The Greenhouse effect of GHG's (is that a circular argument?) shows increased [ce]CO_2[/ce] causes increased climate warming. How much? I don't know, but I do know increased [ce]CO_2[/ce] warms the climate.

 

Again, that is pretty much the basis for global warming.

[Moontanman]

The Earth always changes, that's bad from a skeptics point of view. I can't argue against climate change.

 

The Earth has been both warmer and colder during the history of complex life, I would say the Earth has spent more time since the evolution of complex life warmer than it is now. I'm not sure which would be worse for humans, a warmer Earth or a glaciated Earth. No way we are going to be able to make it stay the way that is best for us or the way it has been over much of civilization.

[BrianG]

If you feel that way then I can't imagine why you would be a global warming skeptic. BTW the world has never been destroyed, well not since the formation of the moon, if it had then we wouldn't be here. ...

 

I think the "tipping point" is a paranoid fantasy.

 

I'd argue the world has been cooling since in condensed out of a ball of hot gas.

 

(Am I still playing fair?)

[lemit]

Moontanman,

 

I think you might be asking more of Hypographers than we are capable of. I wish you well in your endeavor, although it already seems to be failing. Let's hope for the best.

[Moontanman]

I think the "tipping point" is a paranoid fantasy.

 

So you don't think there is a point beyond which positive feed backs will cause the greenhouse effect to grow exponentially? Exposure of permafrost that contains methane hydrates and the warming of the ocean that would also cause the release of methane as methane hydrates which would cause a much faster rise in temps witch would release eve more methane and so on is a fantasy even though there is evidence of both happening in the past?

 

I'd argue the world has been cooling since in condensed out of a ball of hot gas.

 

In my continuing efforts to not blow sunshine up the skirts of either side I will point out the is no reason to think the Earth was ever a ball of hot gas but there is evidence the Earth has been frozen over completely more than once and that the earth has suffered a greenhouse catastrophe of runaway warming in the past as well. see Snowball Earth and Permian Extinction.

 

(Am I still playing fair?)

 

No, you are only allowed to support global warming in this game.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

I think you might be asking more of Hypographers than we are capable of. I wish you well in your endeavor, although it already seems to be failing. Let's hope for the best.

 

I am nothing if not tenacious, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at a problem for the point of view of your opponent. Much can be learned by doing so.

[BrianG]

No matter where you go, there you are. Everywhere I've ever been on Earth, man was there. We drive in our cars, and the world looks veined by roads. I spend most of my times in towns and cities, they are full of people. Everywhere I go, there I am.

 

Humankind is spoiling the Earth, this is no natural space left.

[Moontanman]

No matter where you go, there you are. Everywhere I've ever been on Earth, man was there. We drive in our cars, and the world looks veined by roads. I spend most of my times in towns and cities, they are full of people. Everywhere I go, there I am.

 

Humankind is spoiling the Earth, this is no natural space left.

 

I can claim with equal validity there are vast areas of the earth where human impact is minimal.