Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction? (a thread requested by Andreas89)

[Peter who was Vaak]

But I also wonder if is that heating necessarily related to human influence or is it caused by something else. Another qualm I have is that those same scientists have data that proves that my life is meaningless. Why should I trust them?

Not sure what you're referring to here. I haven't seen any scientific data "proving" any life to be meaningless. But you can read about their methodology and stuff if you don't trust them. I realize that's easier said than done and comprehending many of these topics well requires intensive education (which I lack too, but the 97% of experts on the subject don't).

What I'm referring to is the same people who say the Earth is warming are the same ones that say the Earth came to be by a big bang and that life life came to be somehow and that it evolved to be what it is today, naturalism. Naturalism leads only to Nihilism, life has no meaning. If they can't examine (scientifically) the universe and not see God, then I don't trust they know about the climate either.

That's not necessarily the case. My friend who convinced me, a PhD student in physics, is convinced he is researching biophysics because he will prove scientifically that God exists and he believes in creationism. His philosophy is "i've read the bible and I know how the world is going to end and it won't be by global warming.". That being said, there are changes taking place that can't merely be explained by changing weather patterns, temps hitting record high and record low, even if this it's over just a 150 years, there's something happening. Now, is it necessarily global warming? No, same with global cooling, but something is likely happening that is beyond our understanding and the world will end before we figure it out.

[d@v!d]

That's not necessarily the case. My friend who convinced me, a PhD student in physics, is convinced he is researching biophysics because he will prove scientifically that God exists and he believes in creationism. His philosophy is "i've read the bible and I know how the world is going to end and it won't be by global warming.". That being said, there are changes taking place that can't merely be explained by changing weather patterns, temps hitting record high and record low, even if this it's over just a 150 years, there's something happening. Now, is it necessarily global warming? No, same with global cooling, but something is likely happening that is beyond our understanding and the world will end before we figure it out.

Yeah, I get it that there might be something to the data and there also may be some scientists like your friend. I'm reacting to the larger sociopolitical movement. Those loud voices screaming warming doom scream good is evil and evil is good.

But what you understand is that there is data suggesting warming, but that's it. You don't know the why and significance, right?

[ThomasEversole]

That's not necessarily the case. My friend who convinced me, a PhD student in physics, is convinced he is researching biophysics because he will prove scientifically that God exists and he believes in creationism. His philosophy is "i've read the bible and I know how the world is going to end and it won't be by global warming.". That being said, there are changes taking place that can't merely be explained by changing weather patterns, temps hitting record high and record low, even if this it's over just a 150 years, there's something happening. Now, is it necessarily global warming? No, same with global cooling, but something is likely happening that is beyond our understanding and the world will end before we figure it out.

My friend who convinced me, a PhD student in physics, is convinced he is researching biophysics because he will prove scientifically that God exists and he believes in creationism.

a PhD student in physics, is convinced he is researching biophysics

I'm glad that he is convinced he's researching!

[alldatndensum]

31,000 scientists reject global warming

[ThomasEversole]

↑ now THAT is truly convincing!

[alldatndensum]

Unfortunately, you cannot read tone in online posts without knowing the person better.  I can't read whether you are serious or condescending.

[Guest]

31,000 scientists reject global warming

That list can include anyone in the US with a BS in a STEM field. There are about 15 million people with STEM degrees in the US (from an IEEE Spectrum article)... 31,000 is only 0.2% of that. Without knowing how many scientists had the opportunity to sign that petition, the 31,000 number is meaningless. The number of actual atmosphere, earth and environment scientists who signed that petition is only 3,805. Only 39 (under 0.2%) of the signers are climatologists. By comparison, over 10,000 of the signers are engineers. Over 3,000 study medicine. Almost 5,000 study chemistry, almost 3,000 study biology.

When you look at actual climate scientists and the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers, you see that 90%-100% (studies by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook) of experts hold that global warming is being caused by humans. 97% of abstracts explicitly taking a position on human-driven global warming supported that consensus (study ran by Skeptical Science).

The consensus among experts in a subject is not something be taken lightly. I have a hard time accepting that temperature data being used by an entire field of science makes it through peer-review again and again without being accurate. That said, exo may be right. I certainly don't fully understand how ice core and tree ring data, for example, can be reliable to within fractions of a degree for determining global temperatures. But if the vast majority of the experts in that area agree, I'm willing to accept it. I don't have the time or the funds to reach a similar level of education and understanding... I'll continue researching that when I have time... maybe the records aren't as reliable as they would need to be to establish the conclusions that have been made on anthropogenic global warming. That said, scientific papers are a lot less radical sounding than the rhetoric thrown around by activists and scientists speaking informally...

[ThomasEversole]

I was being serious alldatndensum. :/

That 31,000 people aren't proving anything. It's entirely about lack of evidence. Claiming there's no evidence is not the same as driving to prove something. Undead toaster, did you read the statement they signed? They're stating there's no evidence that A, B and C cause "global warming"...

[Guest]

I was being serious alldatndensum. :/

That 31,000 people aren't proving anything. It's entirely about lack of evidence. Claiming there's no evidence is not the same as driving to prove something. Undead toaster, did you read the statement they signed? They're stating there's no evidence that A, B and C cause "global warming"...

I did read the statement and I understand what they're claiming. I was saying just because you come up with a list of people who make some claim doesn't mean it's valid. Particularly, when the vast majority of others in that pool of people, even more particularly those who study the issue in question, would disagree with the claim. Why should we listen to 39 climatologists claiming there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming when the vast majority of climatologists put forth evidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring?

Edit:
I should clarify that just because someone is not an expert in a field does not mean that their thoughts on the matter are worthless - someone with scientific training is better equipped to understand climate science, even if it's out of their field, than most people, and they may be able to spot flaws in scientific rigor. But in general, they are operating on a lower-level understanding of the subject and don't hold the credibility that an expert would.

[ThomasEversole]

Is there proof that CO2, methane and greenhouse gasses create global warming? ...because I haven't seen said proof and apparently neither have 31,000 scientist.

You'd think that even if the atmosphere wasn't their course of study, that over 9000 people with PhD's would have at least Google searched this proof.

Where is it?

[Guest]

Is there proof that CO2, methane and greenhouse gasses create global warming? ...because I haven't seen said proof and apparently neither have 31,000 scientist.

You'd think that even if the atmosphere wasn't their course of study, that over 9000 people with PhD's would have at least Google searched this proof.

Where is it?

0.2% of scientists in this country having not seen this proof is very much not significant... You can find a small percentage of any group who will claim just about anything. That said, saying that you haven't seen evidence and therefore won't accept global warming is reasonable.

Anyhow, I still can't post links, but here's some evidence:
Radiation from the sun in relatively short wavelengths (visible and UV light) passes through the gasses in the atmosphere, is absorbed by Earth, and Earth re-emits this energy in longer-wavelength (infrared) radiation. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are known to absorb radiation at certain wavelengths. They then emit radiation in all directions - so some of the energy that would have escaped Earth is radiated back down to it. Satellites from NASA and the Japanese Space Agency measuring radiation from the Earth (1970 - 1996) found decreases in radiation at the wavelengths carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb. Data from two more satellites in the 2000s also found decreases in these wavelengths, consistent with what was expected from how CO2 levels rose. So, as CO2 levels rose, more energy was being trapped in the atmosphere. This is from the Skeptical Science website (my wording, their info), citing papers by Harries (2001 paper titled "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"), Griggs (2004) and Chen (2007). There are other lines of evidence as well. I honestly don't think they're that hard to find.

[Guest]

Hi everybody,

I don't really approve this kind of approach between science and Christianity because one have very few things to do with the other, so we can't debate about it serenely. I will explain:

Science is used to describe our physical world and how it's working, whereas Christianity is here to explain it and give an aim.

It's not a question to believe or not in global warming like you believe in God, global warming is a demonstrated fact.

I agree global warming  can't be reduced as bad fact (without it we couldn't be here, too cold) neither an entire human fact (volcanism have an impact too), but we have an significiant impact on it this last hundred years.

I'm at work now, but i can post proofs later for whose are interested.

[New Creation]

we can't debate about it serenely.

No one here has been combative that I have seen.

[crucifyd]

It's not a question to believe or not in global warming like you believe in God, global warming is a demonstrated fact.

as far as I'm concerned, the debate is not whether warming occurs or not or even whether "man made causes" contribute to warming. rather, it is whether warming is the impending and soon to be realized end of us all, as politicians and mainstream media state so frequently.

and what is the solution given? OUR $$$. and again, who is that solution given by? politicians.

as a local talk show host has stated, if said politicians really believed that global warming (or climate change or whatever happens to be their current name for it to throw people off) is the greatest threat facing mankind, as some have said, why do they not make changes in THEIR OWN LIFE that reflect that, such as not flying private jets everywhere, having their entourages, big houses, etc?

all they do is pass (or try to pass) feel-good laws for the gullible masses that will take endless amounts of our money, have basically negligible effect on reducing global warming, and that don't apply to themselves...

[d@v!d]

It's not a question to believe or not in global warming like you believe in God, global warming is a demonstrated fact.

as far as I'm concerned, the debate is not whether warming occurs or not or even whether "man made causes" contribute to warming. rather, it is whether warming is the impending and soon to be realized end of us all, as politicians and mainstream media state so frequently.

and what is the solution given? OUR $$$. and again, who is that solution given by? politicians.

as a local talk show host has stated, if said politicians really believed that global warming (or climate change or whatever happens to be their current name for it to throw people off) is the greatest threat facing mankind, as some have said, why do they not make changes in THEIR OWN LIFE that reflect that, such as not flying private jets everywhere, having there entourages, big houses, etc?

all they do is pass (or try to pass) feel-good laws for the gullible masses that will take endless amounts of our money, have basically negligible effect on reducing global warming, that don't apply to themselves...

Yeah, that's like what I've been saying, but the way you put it has gotten me to think about a solution for this global warming crisis.

Since there are so many politicians and we know they are the ones who contribute most to global warming, we just need to kill them all to reduce our collective emissions. Save a tree, kill a senator. Save the ozone, kill congress. Stop global warming, kill all the politicians!

[ThomasEversole]

Is there proof that CO2, methane and greenhouse gasses create global warming? ...because I haven't seen said proof and apparently neither have 31,000 scientist.

You'd think that even if the atmosphere wasn't their course of study, that over 9000 people with PhD's would have at least Google searched this proof.

Where is it?

0.2% of scientists in this country having not seen this proof is very much not significant... You can find a small percentage of any group who will claim just about anything. That said, saying that you haven't seen evidence and therefore won't accept global warming is reasonable.

Anyhow, I still can't post links, but here's some evidence:
Radiation from the sun in relatively short wavelengths (visible and UV light) passes through the gasses in the atmosphere, is absorbed by Earth, and Earth re-emits this energy in longer-wavelength (infrared) radiation. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are known to absorb radiation at certain wavelengths. They then emit radiation in all directions - so some of the energy that would have escaped Earth is radiated back down to it. Satellites from NASA and the Japanese Space Agency measuring radiation from the Earth (1970 - 1996) found decreases in radiation at the wavelengths carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb. Data from two more satellites in the 2000s also found decreases in these wavelengths, consistent with what was expected from how CO2 levels rose. So, as CO2 levels rose, more energy was being trapped in the atmosphere. This is from the Skeptical Science website (my wording, their info), citing papers by Harries (2001 paper titled "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"), Griggs (2004) and Chen (2007). There are other lines of evidence as well. I honestly don't think they're that hard to find.

Wait, one of the sources for global warming existing is from a site called "Skeptical Science"? That makes me LOL

[Guest]

They aren't a source for global warming existing... They just compile some of the science done on the issue. Nobody has time to search out and read all the scientific papers on a subject, so sites like that compile information for easier access. I did read the abstract of the primary source and their interpretation checks out.

[Guest]

Ah ok, i have not understood that shade of difference, sorry.


There is no dispute here but i have a bad experience of this kind of subjects.

[New Creation]

Oh boy...

[Sponsored content]