Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

What about the Antarctic Sea Ice?
What about the Antarctic Sea Ice? - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com

 

[IslandTractor]

I am a skeptic, but I don't think I am disproportionally skeptical. Science tells us all to be skeptical and we really ought to listen. AGW is a politically charged area, and a complex area, so there is no call to be less skeptical than normal.

Why marry a theory when science seems to prefer divorce. Telling us to be skeptical is the same as telling us to play the field, but don't fall in love...with a theory.

If someone says something about AGW, there's no need to act like they just insulted your wife unless...

Agree. Skepticism is a critical element of good science. I'd say the best approach is 1) to let science do it's job (includes healthy open skepticism) and 2) be especially skeptical of politically biased sources on AGW. 3) science journals are far more reliable than the popular press in this type of debate as a self appointed expert journalist is unlikely to be as qualified as the editors of scientific journals or societies (Daily Mail is an example of #2 and #3.

 

[turnkey4099]

Anybody have a cite to a difinitive article on whether or not the total Antactica ice is growing or diminishing? I tried googling but couldn't find a readable article on it. Last I "heard" was that the sea ice was expanding (possibly partly due to more ice coming off the continent) but the total ice was declining.

Harry K

 

[madmax12]

...edit...

 

[EE_Bota]

Tollster ~ Please consider the Earth has weather cycles, always has, no one is disputing there are changes in weather patterns, just that Humans are not responsible....The environmental Whackos would have us believe it is all our fault...I do not believe that...I am not that arrogant to think humans have the power to permanently injure the Earth...

If we consider the earth to be everything but life, I think the earth is safe. If (everything except life) + (something alive) the earth still has an excellent chance we won't harm it. If we consider the earth to be the last thing mentioned plus humans and other higher animals, there is where concern lies, and it's a valid concern in my view. It is not arrogant at all to worry or claim the last case as a cause for concern.

Obviously, we seem to believe humans were supposed to be a relatively permanent part of the earth (which is not permanent) and it seems we are willing to turn over heaven and earth to be sure that happens. I have no children, but I will scratch pretty hard for the next generation. I guess it's like the Darwin award candidate who supposedly overflew an airport in a lawn chair: "A man's gotta do something. Can't just sit around all the time." So, I'll scratch around.

But many animals have failed on this planet, and it is possible we will bomb-out yet. We are pretty high maintenance. A few decades ago we weren't here (you and I), and a few decades more we will be gone again. That will be true for all individual members of our species, and sometimes I don't see that big of a distinction if a peril wiped us all out at once. But again: A man's gotta do something, so we might as well fight it, but at least we can unload some of the mental duress. No use getting our gut all tore-up about it since that never aids any fight.

Edit:
It occurs to me you may have meant arrogant in a different sense that defers to scripture. Obviously I didn't address that case. I don't know what I'd say about it except since the time is unknown, maybe a man should try to act like it is in the next moment in some respects, and in infinitely long time from now in other respects. Our moral behavior would be the former, and our environmental behavior may be the latter. But I really can't say much on the matter otherwise, but I am interested in what others think.

 

[TCJatko]

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the religion of the left. No amount of factual information will dissuade the true believers. They must be defeated politically so they cannot wreak any more havoc on our economy.

 

[tcreeley]

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the religion of the left. No amount of factual information will dissuade the true believers. They must be defeated politically so they cannot wreak any more havoc on our economy.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Global warming will do- for ages I have wondered what the A stood for. I always assumed it was "anti" global warming! Most of the posters are!

 

[IslandTractor]

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the religion of the left. No amount of factual information will dissuade the true believers. They must be defeated politically so they cannot wreak any more havoc on our economy.

So who can you vote for? By your definition Romney is a lefty.

From Politifact dot com: Romney’s campaign website is silent on climate change. But in Romney’s 2010 book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, he wrote that "I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to factors out of our control."

 

[/pine]

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Global warming will do- for ages I have wondered what the A stood for. I always assumed it was "anti" global warming! Most of the posters are!

Not "anti"...just not as gullible...as they say "fools rush in"...and it will most likely be a very, very long time before ANYONE knows one way or the other...

...the fools have already rushed in and they label ANYONE not a subscriber to their bent a "denier"...or they claim that a highly popular talk show host is responsible for one's lack of gullibility...and they endlessly blather on ignorantly and arrogantly about it...

 

[TCJatko]

So who can you vote for? By your definition Romney is a lefty.

From Politifact dot com: Romney’s campaign website is silent on climate change. But in Romney’s 2010 book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, he wrote that "I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to factors out of our control."

Romney is a typical politician trying to appease everyone. I notice the economy in Rhode Island is the worst in New England; keep on voting Democrat down there.

 

[/pine]

Romney is a typical politician trying to appease everyone. I notice the economy in Rhode Island is the worst in New England; keep on voting Democrat down there.

Actually he is a candidate in a political election... but he's not a politician in any sense of the word when compared to his opposition...granted he has held a political office but that does not make him a "politician"...unlike his counterpart who has never done anything in his career that was not politically motivated...including everything he's done as POTUS...

 

[lockhaven]

I always thought that Rhode Island was part of New England ditto on what /pine said

 

[jefwyn]

Actually he is a candidate in a political election... but he's not a politician in any sense of the word when compared to his opposition...granted he has held a political office but that does not make him a "politician"...unlike his counterpart who has never done anything in his career that was not politically motivated...including everything he's done as POTUS...

1994 ran for senate in Mass.
2002 ran for gov. of Mass
2003-2007 served as gov of Mass
2008 ran for Pres. of U.S.
2012 ran for Pres. of U.S.
No, he is not a politician at all!

 

[/pine]

1994 ran for senate in Mass.
2002 ran for gov. of Mass
2003-2007 served as gov of Mass
2008 ran for Pres. of U.S.
2012 ran for Pres. of U.S.
No, he is not a politician at all!

by definition that is correct...

 

[IslandTractor]

Why are we arguing whether Romney is a politician? Who cares? He's running for political office for the fourth time and has had no other job than politics in the past decade but if you want to consider him a retired vulture capitalist instead that's fine.

Did the cat get your tongues or do you not have any comment on his statement that he believes in AGW?

 

[IslandTractor]

Why are we arguing whether Romney is a politician? Who cares? He's running for political office for the fourth time and has had no other job than politics in the past decade but if you want to consider him a retired vulture capitalist instead that's fine.

Did the cat get your tongues or do you not have any comment on his statement that he believes in AGW?

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Why are we arguing whether Romney is a politician? Who cares? He's running for political office for the fourth time and has had no other job than politics in the past decade but if you want to consider him a retired vulture capitalist instead that's fine.

Did the cat get your tongues or do you not have any comment on his statement that he believes in AGW?

If this article is any indication, his committal is a bit half-hearted, but it is there nonetheless. I can't say that my own personal opinion is too far removed from his...however, the most important aspect in my mind is the import you give to AGW and the remedy, if any, that one believes is necessary based on what we know for sure and what we believe. I do not condemn equivocation, especially with this subject.

PolitiFact | On Mitt Romney and whether humans are causing climate change

 

[IslandTractor]

If this article is any indication, his committal is a bit half-hearted, but it is there nonetheless. I can't say that my own personal opinion is too far removed from his...however, the most important aspect in my mind is the import you give to AGW and the remedy, if any, that one believes is necessary based on what we know for sure and what we believe. I do not condemn equivocation, especially with this subject.

PolitiFact | On Mitt Romney and whether humans are causing climate change

I don't disagree with his general statement that AGW is real but we don't know the extent to which practical changes in human activity can modify the effect (or something like that). That is a cautiously couched position but defensible from a healthy skeptical position that the science is not complete. It does leave open what practical matters of policy he would pursue given the need to make some important decisions before anyone thinks the science on the matter is finalized. The main point is he is not a denier and that this is one of the few topics he has not flip flopped on during the course of this campaign and his political career. The bottom line is that it means whoever is elected in November the deniers are going to be disappointed. It also makes reasonably clear that AGW is a mainstream belief of the public as determined by Romney's pollsters or else Gumby would have flipped his position on this as well. Maybe the American people, left, right and center, are just all gullible.

 

[/pine]

Why are we arguing whether Romney is a politician? Who cares? He's running for political office for the fourth time and has had no other job than politics in the past decade but if you want to consider him a retired vulture capitalist instead that's fine.

Did the cat get your tongues or do you not have any comment on his statement that he believes in AGW?

The only thing that makes the issue an argument is your ignorance...:laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

Just don't become what Marx called a useful idiot. I don't know how long you have been looking at the global warming issue but CO2 has been proven not to be a warming gas. In fact the study of atmospheric gas may not even be the science to be studied to understand global climate changes. You seem to come across as educated on the subject but repeating old CO2 stuff that has been long ago debunked and discussed here makes me think you just joined the uniformed or mislead, so go somewhere else if CO2 is what you want to show as some proof global climate change. When you understand who the global warming people are and their agenda and understand who's slogan is Forward you must understand a red-light comes on when some self proclaimed educated elitist starts with Science moves Forward scattered though their posts.

HS

First I would point out that you were the one who brought up the false statement that volcanoes produce many many times the CO2 output of human activity. Wrong, it is the other way around. I think I gave a reference for that earlier. Second, though you don't reference any of your assertions on either volcanoes or that CO2 is not a warming gas I thought you and others might like to move the debate forward by reading what the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (the Manhattan Project guys) has to say on the matter of CO2 as a warming gas: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

Please enlighten us with references for your positions from scientific sources other than tabloid newspapers or political blogs.