Global Warming Debate

Recently I've been doing some reading (online mostly) into the subject. I'm finding it challenging to sift through the politics of both sides and come up with objective science. I find it truly disheartening that people will blatantly manipulate and/or ignore data for their own political or personal agendas (this goes both ways). So to over-simplify there's two extremes:

1. Global warming is a direct result of pollution and will kill us all.

2. Global warming (casued by man) is a myth heavily supported by anti-capitalist Socialists.

Somewhere in the middle is the truth. It's clear that Al Gore's recent documentary is biased. And while the other link (which is a petition of 1000's of scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists) presents large amounts of data, I still get the feeling of it being propagandized.

I'm still no expert on the subject by any means, and for the most part remain objectively undecided. While I have no problem accepting the premise that we are affecting our climate, I do find it really annoying when people attribute every little thing to global warming, like hurricanes (link about that aspect).

Edit: I originally was going to do a poll but changed my mind after submitting the thread, but I guess the server got confused, thus the poll icon next to the title, yet no poll is present. Oh well.

i consider myself a pretty moderate person, but i didnt find a huge bias in al gore's book "an inconvenient truth". virtually everything is affected by the release of greenhouse gasses, and i dont think its stupid to nitpick at even the smallest of factors in the matter. after all, even a hundred years ago, a frivelous thing such as the depletion of fossil fuels was a nitpicky statement, and its a serious concern. and given with our increasing abuse of the environment, the affects would be increasing so much faster than before, and with worse concequences.

um i think there definitely is global warming, and it is bad being in the uk. but i agree most people probably exagerate. but i dunno how much but i do think we have to do things about it. we should try to use less and industry should make an attempt to cut down emmisions. but that can only happen if governments make it happed.

I like to think of the debate in as straightforward a manner as possible...
1: Burning fossil fuels = greenhouse gases.
2: Greenhouse gases = damage to the ozone layer.
3: Damage to the ozone layer = bad. Obviously.
4: Bad = do something about it, as soon as possible.

Simplistic, I know, but I keep it in mind whenever I'm confronted with another rambling paper or newspaper article on the subject. Also, it's early, and sophistication is not on my agenda right now. :D

Originally Posted by: jiujitsu_jesusI like to think of the debate in as straightforward a manner as possible...
1: Burning fossil fuels = greenhouse gases.
2: Greenhouse gases = damage to the ozone layer.
3: Damage to the ozone layer = bad. Obviously.
4: Bad = do something about it, as soon as possible.

Mostly true, but to clarify on #2, typical greenhouse gases have not been attributed to the hole in the ozone. The main culprit has been CFC's. And something has been done about that...as the use of those has been heavily restricted.

Global warming is real, just not as extreme as most people put it. The global temerature average has only gone up 1 degree in the last 20 or so years. Now, the next thing people are tying in global warming with is the melting of polar ice caps. Now, this is my own belief (I swear I didn't read or hear this anywhere,) I think the melting of the ice is from the moving of the tectonic plates and land mass. Anyone remember the name Pangea? Archiologists believe that 225 million years ago, there was a super-continent that they dubbed "Pangea." Through those millions of years, the movement of tectonic plates forced Pangea apart and drifted the continents to their current locations. Now, Anartica is as far south as it can go, as well as the northern polar ice caps. So with the plates still moving and grinding, the only place for the ice to go is north (for Anartica) and south (for the northern ice caps.) So since the first scientist to study and make observations of the ice, to the present day observations and records, the ice has moved from totally north/south to a slightly warmer climate. Since the ice needs a steady freezing temerature, and the sides moving twards the equator are not getting the 30* or less temp, the ice is melting.

Alot of people say the summers are getting hotter, no they're not. We've had a lot worse summers decades ago and we haven't been breaking any heat records (going by my ares weather.)

My 2 pennies.

Well for what it is worth, I did a degree in Ecology in the lat 80s and there was plenty of data then to support global warming.

Global warming is happening end of story. Regardless of its cause (humans or one of this planets climatic cycles) there are only really two questions that concern me.

1) "what will the impact be on the human race"

2) "what can we do to limit this impact"

It will not be anything like "The Day After Tomorrow" however it is much more likely that ecological niches (i.e. keeping particular disease in particular parts of the world) will shift, summers will become hotter and winters colder.

For the record, greenhouse gases are NOT linked to the depletion if the ozone layer. That is mediated by CFCs (used to be used as coolants). Greenhouse gasses (things like carbon dioxide) are released by burning stuff (like car engines / power stations etc).

There's a lot of hot air being released up here about the Kyoto Accord. What the supproters of this glob of hooey don't stop to consider:

Canada's total contribution to global Greenhouse gasses = Less than 2%
Portion of Canada's contribution due to human activity = Approximately 1%
Global reduction of Greenhouse Gas derived from [u]total[/u] shutdown of all human activity in Canada = Less than 1%

This planet goes through climatic cycles, independant of human activity. 30 years ago, the same airheads who promote Kyoto were screaming about an impending Ice Age! (Look it up). Archeological examination of former Viking settlements established around AD 980 - 1000 suggest that the eastern seaboard of North America was significantly warmer than it is now, long before there was any industrial activity anywhere in the world,

Kyoto is not about saving the planet. Kyoto is about transferring huge amounts of money and jobs to countries that are contributing much of the pollution, but are not required to clean that up.

Carbon dioxide is much less of a hazard to life than the real toxins that Kyoto threatens to divert resources away from cleaning up.

Originally Posted by: Dr_simon.... Greenhouse gasses (things like carbon dioxide) are released by burning stuff (like car engines / power stations etc).

An interesting point:

Wildfires are a major source of these gasses. The area affected each year by these fires has approximately doubled in the last ten years. Contributing factors are hotter, dryer weather, which is made worse by the amount of greenhouse gasses released by these fires. When you track CO2 sources, the clearing of the Brazillian rainforest becomes as significant as industrial activity elsewhere.



Here in Alberta, there's a high level of paranoia about misguided policies (like a carbon tax) that might be imposed by our eastern-based Federal Government. That's a sad state of affairs, given that Alberta has been leading the way in terms of addressing pollution and energy efficiency concerns. The net increase in our country has been due to activity in the industrial centres in Ontario and Quebec. Ironically, these are the provinces pushing for carbon taxes that would cripple Alberta's energy industries. I suspect that would severely strain relations between Canada and the US, given that Canada (Alberta) is now supplying more of America's oil and natural gas than any other source.

One really worrying thing is that much CO2 is locked up in glaciers ice caps etc. Once those babies start to thaw there may well be a positive feed back effect.

Lord of the Strings appears to be the only informed person here. I earned a degree in biology in 2000. During college I took plenty of earth sciences courses and chemistry. What I found was that professors of actual science were skeptical about the claims of the environmentalists. It was the political science teachers(a notorious haven for socialists and anti-capitalists) who knew nothing about real science who claimed global warming was real and man's fault. Real scientists realize that earth's climate is dynamic and has been changing since the beginning. (e.g. the North Pole was at one time a tropical environment) It is my belief that environmentalism and the "global warming" movement(remember it was "global cooling" in the late 70's and early 80's that the environmentalists predicted http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf) are the home of displaced socialists and other collectivists. Gorbachev, former Soviet dictator, is now the head of the Green Cross which is a radical environmentalist group. Also notice that the "plans" that they come up with - like Kyoto - exempt some of the largest polluters like China and India and punish countries like Canada and the US the worst. Ironically it is countries like the US that are coming up with the cleanest technologies for energy. As for algore, check out this link and see what you think. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonOne really worrying thing is that much CO2 is locked up in glaciers ice caps etc. Once those babies start to thaw there may well be a positive feed back effect.[/QUOTE]
Yep. And one of the stances against man causing global warming is that some claim the rise in temperatures precedes the rise in CO2, being that oceans are by far the largest source of it, and warmer oceans release more. I don't know how much truth there is to it myself, but yeah.

[QUOTE=LINK FROM ABOVE]Figure 12: Eleven-year moving average of global surface temperature, as estimated by NASA GISS (23, 33, and 34), plotted as deviation from 1890 (left axis and light line), as compared with atmospheric CO2 (right axis and dark line) (2). Approximately 82% of the increase in CO2 occurred after the temperature maximum in 1940, as is shown in figure 1.

Originally Posted by: sgreggLord of the Strings appears to be the only informed person here. I earned a degree in biology in 2000. During college I took plenty of earth sciences courses and chemistry. What I found was that professors of actual science were skeptical about the claims of the environmentalists. It was the political science teachers(a notorious haven for socialists and anti-capitalists) who knew nothing about real science who claimed global warming was real and man's fault. Real scientists realize that earth's climate is dynamic and has been changing since the beginning. (e.g. the North Pole was at one time a tropical environment) It is my belief that environmentalism and the "global warming" movement(remember it was "global cooling" in the late 70's and early 80's that the environmentalists predicted http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf) are the home of displaced socialists and other collectivists. Gorbachev, former Soviet dictator, is now the head of the Green Cross which is a radical environmentalist group. Also notice that the "plans" that they come up with - like Kyoto - exempt some of the largest polluters like China and India and punish countries like Canada and the US the worst. Ironically it is countries like the US that are coming up with the cleanest technologies for energy. As for algore, check out this link and see what you think. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Yes, I agree that Kyoto is totally bogus with alterior motives. Of course there are those who automatically point to and blame President Bush for not going along with it, but they seem to disregard the fact that the Senate also unanimously (95-0) voted against it in 1997.

Originally Posted by: sgreggLord of the Strings appears to be the only informed person here. I earned a degree in biology in 2000. During college I took plenty of earth sciences courses and chemistry. ....

I'll take that as a personal compliment, but you really should take a closer look at your surroundings here. Specifically, you should get to know more about Dr_simon of the University of Iowa, who I daresay knows a thing or two about biology himself. :o

biolowhat ? I woke up and discovered I was a professor the other day !!

Hey Doc, here's biology at work for ya! This lil news headline was on my homepage just now and it made me chuckle.
Gummy bears, snot, and defecation

very interesting read indeed...

Originally Posted by: R. Shackleferd... Gummy bears, snot, and defecation...

Heh. Sounds like a rug-rat birthday party to me. :eek:

yay for beer!!! but yeah i agree...the world just needs a nice icy cold beer in winter...woot

Ah such a flippancy! I was recently appointed Visiting Assistant Professor in Anatomy and Cell Biology at the UofI. Cool Hu !

Science in politics is only really a problem when people are either 1) to lazy to get into the available data or 2) to dumb to understand it.

Science done properly is not political, if you feel that it has been politicized, then go back to the data and make your own mind up. All you have to do is understand the elements it examines.

Unfortunately, in a world that favors "five word answers" there is plenty of room for abuse !