Climate: For the ill informed

[pthebutcher]

After reading many posts regarding climate change on this board it has become quite evident to me, that many people have been thrown off by all the misinformation out there. Well, if you are truly interested in learning a bit more about such topics as listed below...follow the links:

Myths:
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays
• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

[Wesley]

Okay, what does the other side have to say now for themselves?

[brianhos]

After reading many posts regarding climate change on this board it has become quite evident to me, that many people have been thrown off by all the misinformation out there. Well, if you are truly interested in learning a bit more about such topics as listed below...follow the links:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays
• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Not sure any of this really says we should continue to deliberately pollute our planet.

[ahaselhu]

Not sure any of this really says we should continue to deliberately pollute our planet.

Not sure if you're confused, but he's presenting the case for global warming.

Thanks for the links, I'll be checking those out. It would have more credibility for me if they didn't all come from the same website, but all the same there's some good info there.

I'm certainly one of the skeptics, but I also certainly haven't discounted the possibility. At this point there's 2 distinct groups which both have their own numbers backing up their positions. It depends on whose science you believe.

[chadm]

From experts at a seminar at ISU today. Since the seed of crops where planted this year the average temp in Ames has been 62 degrees.(Day and night) The average is 69 degrees to this date.

Global warming is a concern?

[isutrevman]

Fact: Global warming MIGHT exist.
Fact: It is not caused by humans.
Fact: Global Climate change occurs naturally.
Fiction: I can control Earth's climate.

[isutrevman]

From experts at a seminar at ISU today. Since the seed of crops where planted this year the average temp in Ames has been 62 degrees.(Day and night) The average is 69 degrees to this date.

Global warming is a concern?

In my opinion, there are a hundred other things we should be more worried about than global warming. Never if it is/isn't real or is/isn't caused by humans, I just think there are more important things to try to fix that will impact us sooner than global warming would.

[kingcy]

So to present your case you give us links to an environmentist web site? Those people who are forcing the global warming or climate change or whatever they want to call it this week down out throats. I wonder how much money they are making on their site? To me the global warming is science with shaddy science behind it, put out by people wanting to make a buck by telling lies, streaching the truth, and playing on out fears.

[ajk4st8]

Fact: Global warming MIGHT exist.
Fact: It is not caused by humans.
Fact: Global Climate change occurs naturally.
Fiction: I can control Earth's climate.

Exactly my view. With that said, there is nothing wrong with doing our best to keep the environment healthy. Water pollution, visible trash, limited resources all give good reasons to recycle and be nice to the environment.

Nothing makes me more angry than going wading down the Boone River snagging smallies than to see peoples trash/crap all over the side of the river.

[whirlybirds]

So to present your case you give us links to an environmentist web site? Those people who are forcing the global warming or climate change or whatever they want to call it this week down out throats. I wonder how much money they are making on their site? To me the global warming is science with shaddy science behind it, put out by people wanting to make a buck by telling lies, streaching the truth, and playing on out fears.

[MNclone]

Not sure any of this really says we should continue to deliberately pollute our planet.

I don't believe that the quest to stop global warming has anything to do with pollution. It is all about carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gasses.
So everyone is dumping so much money into reducing their "carbon footprint" that pollution is ignored.
I am all for getting rid of pollution, and we should be working on alternative energy sources at all costs. But these things shouldn't be happening out of fear of baking our planet. They should be done because we should keep our planet clean, and so that we don't have to send billions of dollars to our enemies every year for our energy needs. It just makes sense in the long run economically.
Preying off of people's fear of global warming is just plain weak.

[matmann22]

After extensive research, I have found this global warming that some have been preaching about. I left all my computer modeling, charts, slideshows, and chemistry lessons alone for this one time.

I found it in Washington DC and it goes by the title of ... our elected officials ! Fortunately, the hot air from Congress and the White House is only a 3 or 4 day a week deal since they take long weekends and LOTS of vacation.

[Phaedrus]

Aha! So anyone who disagrees with the "scientific" theory of global warming, errrrr climate change, errrr whatever, is "Ill Informed?"

How about I keep my grey cells and not read the links to your activist web site? M'kay?

I stand by my assertion that real scientists don't make broad-sweeping predictions based on a microscopic amount of data on a multiple-interacting complex system.

And, btw, even if human-caused globo-warming IS real (and significant enough to care about), the apparent conclusion of even the activist/scientists is that it can not be stopped. So the correct answer is to make plans to ameliorate the effects of global warming, don't you think?

[Irresponsible]

In my opinion, there are a hundred other things we should be more worried about than global warming.

You've nailed it. All to often we discuss global warming solutions from a scientific standpoint while neglecting the economics of the solutions.

As an example, 1.5 million people are killed annually in car accidents. Yet we know how to reduce this figure to nearly zero. So, why do allow it to remain so high? Because the "solution" to this problem is to reduce the speed limit to 5 mph. "That's ridiculous! That would kill our economy and reduce my quality of life," you say.

You are correct. Yet when global warming symposiums arrive at similar economy killing solutions, opponents are called "ill-informed."

Interestly, most economists agree that economic prosperity results in the greatest environmental benefit. As countries become more wealthy, they improve their water systems, sewage systems, etc. That leads to fewer deaths and better quality of life than even the most agressive greenhouse gas reduction scenarios create.

For a more complete discussion of the economics of global warming and the solutions, read some stuff by Bjorn Lomborg. He creates interesting food for thought.

[Phaedrus]

You've nailed it. All to often we discuss global warming solutions from a scientific standpoint while neglecting the economics of the solutions.

As an example, 1.5 million people are killed annually in car accidents. Yet we know how to reduce this figure to nearly zero. So, why do allow it to remain so high? Because the "solution" to this problem is to reduce the speed limit to 5 mph. "That's ridiculous! That would kill our economy and reduce my quality of life," you say.

You are correct. Yet when global warming symposiums arrive at similar economy killing solutions, opponents are called "ill-informed."

Interestly, most economists agree that economic prosperity results in the greatest environmental benefit. As countries become more wealthy, they improve their water systems, sewage systems, etc. That leads to fewer deaths and better quality of life than even the most agressive greenhouse gas reduction scenarios create.

For a more complete discussion of the economics of global warming and the solutions, read some stuff by Bjorn Lomborg. He creates interesting food for thought.

Bingo! One of the reasons environmental activists have picked out CO2, is that it's harder to pin down than environmental pollution. And frankly, collective wealth leads to less pollution, so it defeats the socialist/communist dogma which is really what is behind the "Human Caused Global Warming" fad.