Global Warming: Man made or not

[Silver]

I honestly don't know what to believe: http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

[Mutt]

As always the truth is somewhere in the middle

[Diraker]

Mutt, sometimes one person can be right and another person can be wrong.

Anyway if someone is interested in talking science I'll partake but if this is gonna be about politics and lackies I am not interested.

[Silver]

I just want to know what science to believe.

[Diraker]

With all the deliberate misinformation out there the real science gets undermined. And that's the point. Don't be bamboozled by propaganda.

[Silver]

With all the deliberate misinformation out there the real science gets undermined. And that's the point. Don't be bamboozled by propaganda.

Well what is the "real" science?

And I'm not picking a fight. I'm sincerely asking.

[Diraker]

I can't watch the video now (and to be honest it looks like something that won't interest me that much) but if there are some specific claims being made that you find objectionable I'd be more than happy to comment. But basically if the source comes from an op-ed page, think tank, or a documentary internet film and doesn't come from a real science publication (like Nature or The Journal of Atmospheric Science...ya know real science papers) it's probably just spun, cherry picked, and probably deliberate misleading info. This goes for the Greenies as well as the Right Wingers (and sorry about the terms. I don't know what to call 'em).

Bottom line is that anthropogenic global climate change is a fact. To what extent is up for debate (because other things effect climate too). What to do about it is also up for debate. But that humans impact the environment is just simply observed fact.

[Punisher]

But that humans impact the environment is just simply observed fact.

Impacting the environment is one thing. Impacting the climate is something else.

[Aradorn]

i would really like to know how much c02 was in the air during the industrial revolution vs today.

i would think that more pollution was released then, than there is now.

[Lozzt One]

In a few articles I've read (from published sources in geography/geology journals) some scientist conclude that climate change occurs but they also propose that if it has occurred in the past that future occurances cannot be predicted based on models because of the lack of research into it. It has only been very recent that climatologist have received any decent amount of funding to research climate change, and the more we can understand what occurs and to what extent, then informed decisions can be made.

On a political note: I do not think the government has the right to create and enforce any laws that deliberately hinders the constituents. As is, any tax or law that hinders the constituents rights (natural or otherwise) especially in a time of economic distress is uncalled for with out firm fact to base it on.

[Spawl]

All it takes is one good volcanic eruption or a meteor of sufficient size or a algae bloom in an ocean to drastically change our climate. I'm sure humans have an effect and I believe that our population is going to get too large at some point and we will have a detrimental effect on all the other animals and plants. While our most excellent scientists are out there squabbling over whether global warming is happening or not why don't they get off their asses and develop a hybrid tree that consumes 2+ times the CO2as the current species. Especially if this plant could more quickly metabolize and grow larger it might help feed our fiber/wood needs along with having a better impact on the world making up for our shortfalls.

I have a hard time believing that CO2 is the only issue. Our impact is much greater than that.

[Kydorias]

We also better start looking into space travel and establishing colonies on other planets. All the global warming hoopla won't make a bit of difference when Yosemite blows or a large comet hits, both of which are 100% probabilities over time.

Severe global warming will "only" result in a certain percentage of human population decline, while either of the two above occurrences are catastrophic, 100% human race ending events.

[Diraker]

There are only a few scientisits "squabbling" over AGW anthropogenic global warming). The vast majority of scientists understand that humans are playing a role. Just like there are only a few scientists that advocate for intelligent design. Most of the 'debate' stems from political and social issues not scientific issues. As far as fast growing CO2 using plants...maybe we should grow more hemp!!

But what is ironic about your comment Spawl is that (and you know this) some of the most vocal people about being green and such are the same people who are against using science to alter DNA and stuff. Some people approach luddite status IMO. Also IMO there needs to be more funding of science and less spending on say bailing out banks or propaganda campaigns that undermine science (like ID). And of course there are the folk who seem to think scientists are evil and messing with God's DNA is bad news. That "to play God" is wrong.

And yeah Kydorias there's a 100% chance of a mass extinction event happening in the future. But global climate change can be related to that too. There are historical examples of such. There's methane frozen in our oceans and when ocean temps rise this methane boils out thus raising tempurates even further. Large volcanic events, such as the Deccan Traps can also help trigger mass extinction events. This is how thew dinosaurs were killed. Everyone knows about the asteroid but the asteroid alone doesn't explain it. It's was the triple whammy combo of lava traps, melting frozen oceanic methane, and then capped off with an asteroid impact (or perhaps several impacts).

Cool video "What Really Killed the Dinosaurs". Some manfucatured dama but lot's of good info. And IMO parts 4 and 5 are the best parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FmoJo9c270