Where are the sun spots?

[alchemysa]

It is the height of human arrogance and hubris to think man causes global warming.

.

I don't really know what you mean by that. Are saying we don't have the technology to the stuff up the planet? Or do you mean we don't have the 'power' to destroy one of 'God's creations'?

Anyway, I defy anyone to go to somewhere like Bangkok and say humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. Some days it was like being shut in the garage with the engine running.
And, just north, a billion Chinese are discovering the joys of motoring.

 

[MikePA]

I don't really know what you mean by that. Are saying we don't have the technology to the stuff up the planet? Or do you mean we don't have the 'power' to destroy one of 'God's creations'?

Both. Of all possible causes of variations in climate over the years, it's hubris and arrogance to think humans cause it. It was arrogance in the 70s when the 'experts' thought humans were causing us to enter a new ice age. It was arrogance in the 90s when the 'experts' said humans were causing global warming. It's arrogance now for the 'experts' to think we're causing climate change. They've gotten smart, now it's 'climate change' so any change in the weather is cause for alarm. It's arrogance to assume the climate the way it is now, is the way it's supposed to be.

Anyway, I defy anyone to go to somewhere like Bangkok and say humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. Some days it was like being shut in the garage with the engine running.And, just north, a billion Chinese are discovering the joys of motoring.

Anecdotal observations, like other global warming 'proof', isn't science.

 

[alchemysa]

Both. Of all possible causes of variations in climate over the years, it's hubris and arrogance to think humans cause it. It was arrogance in the 70s when the 'experts' thought humans were causing us to enter a new ice age. It was arrogance in the 90s when the 'experts' said humans were causing global warming. It's arrogance now for the 'experts' to think we're causing climate change. They've gotten smart, now it's 'climate change' so any change in the weather is cause for alarm. It's arrogance to assume the climate the way it is now, it the way it's supposed to be.


Anecdotal observations, like other global warming 'proof', isn't science.

Firstly, Of course we have the technology to wreck the planet. We could cut down all the trees and burn them, pour all our poisons into the lakes and oceans, and let off all our nuclear weapons at once. It would be pretty easy really but hopefully we won't do it deliberately.

Secondly, It appears you believe in God. I admit I don't, but even if I did why would I believe he/she would stop it happening? WW1, WW2, The holocaust, Aids, genocide in Africa, Obesity, and countless other man-made and natural disasters seem to have proceeded quite smoothly without any divine intervention. Why would God stop us proceeding down yet another path of self destruction? Maybe he wants to teach us a lesson. We will reap what we sow.

Thirdly. What will it take to convince you? Seriously, I'm interested in your answer. What 'sign' do you need? Can you tell me what needs to happen before you will begin to get worried? Have you really asked yourself that question?
In my opinion you are dismissing both the anecdotal observations of common folks AND some pretty compelling scientific evidence. I'm living in a 'one in a thousand year' drought at the moment. It could just be a temporary 'correction' but I don't think we should count on that.

We live in a thin film of habitable atmosphere around a pretty tiny planet. Its so thin that just climbing Mt Everest requires the wearing of an oxygen mask. If you don't think we have the power to mess up this little air bubble of ours then I think you are in a minority.

 

[MikePA]

Firstly, Of course we have the technology to wreck the planet.

Secondly, It appears you believe in God.

Thirdly. What will it take to convince you?

Firstly, we have the ability to damage areas of the planet, but not wreck it. Did setting off nukes in WWII wreck the planet? Did nuke testing in the 50s and 60s wreck the planet? Did Chernobyl wreck the planet? No.

Secondly, yes, I believe in God. Since religious discussions are not allowed on TBN, I won't respond.

Thirdly, there are a lot of scientists who do not believe man causes global warming. Science is not about opinions. It's great if individuals want to alter their lives because they believe in man made global warming. I draw the line when leftists and liberals want to grab power and tax revenue for governments around the world to control more and more of citizens lives based on a someone's theory. Doesn't it cause you any concern that it's primarily leftists and liberals and organizations like the UN who are pushing massive tax hikes and huge grabs of power who are pushing man-made global warming? 'Cap and trade' legislation is a huge power grab by the US government into private enterprise that will increase costs which will be passed onto the consumer.

 

[Egon]

chopping firewood for a little longer .

Yes that will be happening as long as the aging body can comply.

Back in Alberta one was able to see the Northern Lights. After an unusually nice light show weather changes like storms usually occurred within four days time. I do miss seeing them in Nova Scotia as they can be quite spectacular!

Of course you folks Down Under don't see the Northern Lights! It's the Aurora Australis isn't it?

Could someone please tell me which contributes more atmospheric pollution. Burning wood in my stove or letting the log rot in the Woods??

 

[SPYDERLK]

[[[Firstly, we have the ability to damage areas of the planet, but not wreck it. Did setting off nukes in WWII wreck the planet? Did nuke testing in the 50s and 60s wreck the planet? Did Chernobyl wreck the planet? No.]]]

[[[Secondly, yes, I believe in God. ]]] Since religious discussions are not allowed on TBN, I won't respond.

[[[ Perhaps firstly we need a definition of wreck. Then we need to understand the concept of a fulcrum point. Then perhaps the concept of balance and tipping points.]]] This would aid your understanding of what scientists are talking about. The extremely limited above ground nukes were a tiny nudge compared to what could easily happen in nuclear war. -- And still, these isolated past events had measurable immediate and delayed health effects on nearby populations.

[[[ This is obvious by your repititious use of "arrogance" in prior posts to describe any thot or fear Man may have about the real ability to have a monumental effect.]]]
larry

 

[Egon]

Toward the end of the of the Archean Period and at the beginning of the Proterozoic Period, about 2.5 billion years ago, oxygen-forming photosynthesis began to occur. The first fossils, in fact, were a type of blue-green algae that could photosynthesize

Speaking of altering the Earth these little fellows, prolific multipliers were so efficient at turning carbon dioxide into oxygen that they destroyed the environment they could live in and created one in which we can live!

 

[MikePA]

This would aid your understanding of what scientists are talking about. The extremely limited above ground nukes were a tiny nudge compared to what could easily happen in nuclear war. -- And still, these isolated past events had measurable immediate and delayed health effects on nearby populations.

[[[ This is obvious by your repititious use of "arrogance" in prior posts to describe any thot or fear Man may have about the real ability to have a monumental effect.]]]
larry

This thread is about man's ability to cause changes in climate, not about health effects of nuclear blasts. Nor did I say there weren't localized effects. I said it didn't 'wreck the planet'. Since all this is theory, we will never know.

How would you describe the following?

• Man looking at temperature differences over decades or centuries and concluding the only possible explanation is what humans have done.
  
• These same people ridiculing equally qualified scientists who disagree with them.
  
• Asking others to agree to massive tax increases and changes in lifestyle to 'fix' this 'problem'.

 

[SPYDERLK]

This thread is about man's ability to cause changes in climate, not about health effects of nuclear blasts. Nor did I say there weren't localized effects. I said it didn't 'wreck the planet'. Since all this is theory, we will never know.

[[[How would you describe the following?]]]

• Man looking at temperature differences over decades or centuries and concluding the only possible explanation is what humans have done.
  
• These same people ridiculing equally qualified scientists who disagree with them.
  
• Asking others to agree to massive tax increases and changes in lifestyle to 'fix' this 'problem'.

As I said - Perhaps firstly we need a definition of wreck. Then we need to understand the concept of a fulcrum point. Then perhaps the concept of balance and tipping points.

[[[ I would describe this as an incomplete interpretation portrayed in a way that leads the reader toward an inaccurate view of the scientific discussion.]]] There is too much exaggeration being used in the argument on both sides, but there is also good science in the debate.
larry

 

[alchemysa]

. Doesn't it cause you any concern that it's primarily leftists and liberals and organizations like the UN who are pushing massive tax hikes and huge grabs of power who are pushing man-made global warming? 'Cap and trade' legislation is a huge power grab by the US government into private enterprise that will increase costs which will be passed onto the consumer.

Sure it bugs me that there are opportunists on all sides who see this as easy money. (Look up the meaning of 'Rent Seekers').

But that doesn't blind me from seeing a real problem at the heart of the matter.

And it appears that any science that suggests that man is responsible is going to be dismissed by you as 'hubris and arrogance' so you are really not arguing this from a scientific perspective at all.