Ezekel:
Do you have proof of man made global warming? If so please present it. Also the idea that medieval society thought the earth was flat is a myth.

sneakypenguin:
Yes people still debate this. Perhaps you care to explain why sea ice levels have now rebounded to 1979 levels?

"Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region"

Look at your hockey stick graph all you like, it doesn't make global warming so. Acting like there is no other side to the theory does not make the other side correct.

People don't say the earth is flat cause we can see it's not.
Global warming on the other hand is not so cut and dry, even if some say it is.

I have yet to see any credible research indicating this. It's been well over 2 years since I reviewed any research on this but I can say that as a skeptic (like you are), I didn't believe until I read the facts. Politicians and news articles are not credible sources. They both have a financial interest that jeopardizes their credibility.

The first mistake people make in this is they believe whatever they read. You need to research their sources.

I do know a simple one off the top of my head, "How It All Ends" on youtube is one you can look up. He outlines how to do unbiased research, whether for or against. He, himself, is evidently a believer in global climate change.

But, in the sake of fairness, I will look into your claims. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will accept it and defend your position.

Edit: Btw, can you cite your sources? I'd like to know where these claims came from so I can determine for myself.

Railu:
quoted for "Ping"

sources
just news articles for the sea ice thing cause I don't quite have time to go digging though pages of academic journals (I do that enough for school) anyways enough for a jumping of point into the topic
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 (google sea ice same as 1979 for a ton of hits)

Hate to throw articles out without researching too much behind them, but time eating>than time spent reading.

Edit: Gave up eating dinner and looking into the GW thing and Holy dear lord, so many freaking theories on this thing. My preliminary conclusion if looking at recent data it appears yes the earth is warming, long term data on the other hand seems like its just another part of the cycle. Earth warms earth cools, and repeat.

Railu:

Ezekel:
Do you have proof of man made global warming? If so please present it. Also the idea that medieval society thought the earth was flat is a myth.

sneakypenguin:
Yes people still debate this. Perhaps you care to explain why sea ice levels have now rebounded to 1979 levels?

"Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region"

Look at your hockey stick graph all you like, it doesn't make global warming so. Acting like there is no other side to the theory does not make the other side correct.

People don't say the earth is flat cause we can see it's not.
Global warming on the other hand is not so cut and dry, even if some say it is.

I have yet to see any credible research indicating this. It's been well over 2 years since I reviewed any research on this but I can say that as a skeptic (like you are), I didn't believe until I read the facts. Politicians and news articles are not credible sources. They both have a financial interest that jeopardizes their credibility.

The first mistake people make in this is they believe whatever they read. You need to research their sources.

I do know a simple one off the top of my head, "How It All Ends" on youtube is one you can look up. He outlines how to do unbiased research, whether for or against. He, himself, is evidently a believer in global climate change.

But, in the sake of fairness, I will look into your claims. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will accept it and defend your position.

Edit: Btw, can you cite your sources? I'd like to know where these claims came from so I can determine for myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

The idea of medieval thought of flat earth comes from a fiction novel about Columbus' voyage written by Washington Irving. It also seems to be mostly kept around to give the idea that religion stops all scientific thought, it became popular in the 19th century as a conflict thesis.

The earth has always warmed up over time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the earth was much warmer. It cooled down, probably due to asteroid impact, which killed the dinos. Why did it warm back up? It wasn't man! There have been ice ages about every 100,000 years. It warms back up every time. Why? Because the sun supplies slightly more heat than the earth needs. It has happened over and over again without mans help. I am so tired of hearing how man caused the heating when it is obvious that it has occurred many times when men weren't around!

sneakypenguin:

Railu:
quoted for "Ping"

sources
just news articles for the sea ice thing cause I don't quite have time to go digging though pages of academic journals (I do that enough for school) anyways enough for a jumping of point into the topic
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 (google sea ice same as 1979 for a ton of hits)

Hate to throw articles out without researching too much behind them, but time eating>than time spent reading.

I understand completely, researching the researchers is very difficult. I'm serious, if I'm wrong about this, then I will gladly defend the position.

But this is not yet enough to convince me. I need more information. I've googled it and found most were opinion pieces and commentary, something I tend to stay away from in any serious research. However, it is giving me a reason to look into it further.

I'll post anything else I find. And since I posted it earlier, I'll say again. Global warming is a misnomer. Because it's a climate change (or climate chaos as some call it). One of the things to remember, is the mean temperature of the earth could very well remain the same. We simply don't know enough yet and are relying on projections. Certain things are for sure, and that is that there are weather abnormalities throughout the world, ranging from droughts, to increased precipitation, to drops in temperature.

Now, could the earth correct itself? Possibly. Again, I don't know. But the point of science is to be self-correcting once new evidence comes in to light.

I'm a big believer in that if the media hypes something, then it's either not true, or not important. I could be wrong, but I also think that they started to be really big on this global warming thing, after everyone got tired of hearing about the war in Iraq. Could be mistaken, but i just think they needed something else with which to get peoples goat.

The sun causes warming duh.

sneakypenguin:
Yes people still debate this. Perhaps you care to explain why sea ice levels have now rebounded to 1979 levels?

As one commenter pointed out, that value is rather cherry-picked.

-- Alex

Frizzle:
I'm a big believer in that if the media hypes something, then it's either not true, or not important.

Be careful! Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

-- Alex

Railu:

sneakypenguin:

Railu:
quoted for "Ping"

sources
just news articles for the sea ice thing cause I don't quite have time to go digging though pages of academic journals (I do that enough for school) anyways enough for a jumping of point into the topic
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 (google sea ice same as 1979 for a ton of hits)

Hate to throw articles out without researching too much behind them, but time eating>than time spent reading.

I understand completely, researching the researchers is very difficult. I'm serious, if I'm wrong about this, then I will gladly defend the position.

But this is not yet enough to convince me. I need more information. I've googled it and found most were opinion pieces and commentary, something I tend to stay away from in any serious research. However, it is giving me a reason to look into it further.

I'll post anything else I find. And since I posted it earlier, I'll say again. Global warming is a misnomer. Because it's a climate change (or climate chaos as some call it). One of the things to remember, is the mean temperature of the earth could very well remain the same. We simply don't know enough yet and are relying on projections. Certain things are for sure, and that is that there are weather abnormalities throughout the world, ranging from droughts, to increased precipitation, to drops in temperature.

Now, could the earth correct itself? Possibly. Again, I don't know. But the point of science is to be self-correcting once new evidence comes in to light.

So what your saying is that no matter what happens, it can be blamed on us. So sea level rises, its our fault. It falls, also our fault. Polar Ice caps melt, blame corporations, they refreeze, blame them again.

There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce the amount of pollution, but demonizing corporations and trying to start mass hysteria to do so is not the correct way to go about it.

It's the reason why polar bears hate us.

Railu:

I understand completely, researching the researchers is very difficult. I'm serious, if I'm wrong about this, then I will gladly defend the position.

But this is not yet enough to convince me. I need more information. I've googled it and found most were opinion pieces and commentary, something I tend to stay away from in any serious research. However, it is giving me a reason to look into it further.

I'll post anything else I find. And since I posted it earlier, I'll say again. Global warming is a misnomer. Because it's a climate change (or climate chaos as some call it). One of the things to remember, is the mean temperature of the earth could very well remain the same. We simply don't know enough yet and are relying on projections. Certain things are for sure, and that is that there are weather abnormalities throughout the world, ranging from droughts, to increased precipitation, to drops in temperature.

Now, could the earth correct itself? Possibly. Again, I don't know. But the point of science is to be self-correcting once new evidence comes in to light.

Thank you good sir you seem vastly more logical and objective than most. Rare to find someone who is not dead set on one way or the other.

Alex_P:

sneakypenguin:
Yes people still debate this. Perhaps you care to explain why sea ice levels have now rebounded to 1979 levels?

As one commenter pointed out, that value is rather cherry-picked.

-- Alex

Ahhh I can always count on you to counter my post.
Looking at the graph 90 and 85 also look the same to.(just to be picky :)
It's funny in 1975 I think*finds article* they seemed quite dead set on global cooling

Newsweek 1975 article about the trend towards global cooling

Funny they thought it was cooling, turned out wrong, we think its warming, turns out wrong?

Sorry for double post
wall O text

I did not vote because the term "Global Warming" is now out dated. "Global Climate Change" is now the correct term that most credible scientists use. Science is like that, it changes all the time as new truths be come evident.

Oh, and the ice is still melting right now all over the world as I type this if we want to believe that it is or not. The ice will melt without our belief, it matters not. Otherwise huge chunks would not be falling off of Antarctica on a weekly basis and all the glaciers on all the mountains around the world would still be there as they had been before it started getting hotter. Mount Kilimanjaro is a good example. No more ice there really and it is not the only place to see this decrease in our frozen water sources. If this continues, and it will, a good amount of people who were short on water to begin with are in some serious shit.

Another funny but sad example are the South Pacific Islanders that recently had to move off their ancestral islands because of raising sea levels. To most people a few inches more of sea water around the planet is not much at all. But to people who live in the Philippines, Holland, New Orleans or similar places it could mean serious trouble.

That is just my two cents adjusted for 2009 inflation.

gsf1200:
The earth has always warmed up over time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the earth was much warmer. It cooled down, probably due to asteroid impact, which killed the dinos. Why did it warm back up? It wasn't man! There have been ice ages about every 100,000 years. It warms back up every time. Why? Because the sun supplies slightly more heat than the earth needs. It has happened over and over again without mans help. I am so tired of hearing how man caused the heating when it is obvious that it has occurred many times when men weren't around!

Generalization Fallacy.
Using that logic, we would have to claim that "Every dog I've seen today has been black, therefore every dog I ever will see will be black." It's bad logic. Yes, the sun did cause global warming in times past. These are not those times. The correlation between global warming and the sun disappeared around 1975 as the temperature continued to warm while the sun's output levelled and then receded.

sneakypenguin:
Newsweek 1975 article about the trend towards global cooling

Newsweek is not peer reviewed. There were a total of 7 peer reviewed articles that predicted global cooling in the 70's. There were 42 that predicted global warming. They weren't as alarmist, so they didn't get published. You can find a fuller debunking of this myth here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Better yet, save us all some time and just go through this list: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to find all of the arguments you're going to use already debunked.

Kwil:

sneakypenguin:
Newsweek 1975 article about the trend towards global cooling

Newsweek is not peer reviewed. There were a total of 7 peer reviewed articles that predicted global cooling in the 70's. There were 42 that predicted global warming. They weren't as alarmist, so they didn't get published. You can find a fuller debunking of this myth here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Better yet, save us all some time and just go through this list: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to find all of the arguments you're going to use already debunked.

My newsweek thing wasn't for hard scientific evidence(kill me if that day ever comes) but rather a compare/contrast to media and perceptions then and now.
O, I would like to pull an Alex_p here(since he has done it to me all the time) and call out the link as biased. I can google that substituting a few words and come up with a similar site saying the complete opposite. :)
The internet is a wonderful beast, but a beast controlled by the user to say/reflect whatever the user wishes to say.

Ezekel:

Railu:

sneakypenguin:

Railu:
quoted for "Ping"

sources
just news articles for the sea ice thing cause I don't quite have time to go digging though pages of academic journals (I do that enough for school) anyways enough for a jumping of point into the topic
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 (google sea ice same as 1979 for a ton of hits)

Hate to throw articles out without researching too much behind them, but time eating>than time spent reading.

I understand completely, researching the researchers is very difficult. I'm serious, if I'm wrong about this, then I will gladly defend the position.

But this is not yet enough to convince me. I need more information. I've googled it and found most were opinion pieces and commentary, something I tend to stay away from in any serious research. However, it is giving me a reason to look into it further.

I'll post anything else I find. And since I posted it earlier, I'll say again. Global warming is a misnomer. Because it's a climate change (or climate chaos as some call it). One of the things to remember, is the mean temperature of the earth could very well remain the same. We simply don't know enough yet and are relying on projections. Certain things are for sure, and that is that there are weather abnormalities throughout the world, ranging from droughts, to increased precipitation, to drops in temperature.

Now, could the earth correct itself? Possibly. Again, I don't know. But the point of science is to be self-correcting once new evidence comes in to light.

So what your saying is that no matter what happens, it can be blamed on us. So sea level rises, its our fault. It falls, also our fault. Polar Ice caps melt, blame corporations, they refreeze, blame them again.

There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce the amount of pollution, but demonizing corporations and trying to start mass hysteria to do so is not the correct way to go about it.

I will not demonize someone or a collective of people who do not rightly deserve it. But to think that multiplying the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will have no negative side effects is naive in the best of terms. But if you've read anything I've said, I've not demonized anyone.

Just because my stance is that there is a negative impact on our current climate status does not mean that I am of an extreme position. Antagonizing someone doesn't win them to your side either. I don't accept everything that is put in front of me, especially when there is an abundance of groups who have a vested financial interest in me accepting it at face value.

If the only by-product of this "crisis" is that we, as a people become more energy efficient and more conscientious of our planet, then how have we lost? Crisis or not, I think we only have to gain so long as we start becoming critical thinkers and not partisan lackeys.

Railu:

If the only by-product of this "crisis" is that we, as a people become more energy efficient and more conscientious of our planet, then how have we lost? Crisis or not, I think we only have to gain so long as we start becoming critical thinkers and not partisan lackeys.

Man, I love good logic. My thanks for injecting it here into this thread.

sneakypenguin:

Funny they thought it was cooling, turned out wrong, we think its warming, turns out wrong?

Haha, yes, climate change is nothing new. This is why it's so difficult.

There is an abundance of facts. The problem is, the layman cannot interpret them. We rely on the people who can. The second problem is that the media presents this information and that is often where things get hairy. The third problem is that since the best way to get the facts is to read the peer-review studies, if you don't know how or are unaware of how to get that information, you rely on potentially misinformation to get your opinion.

It's a quagmire and a difficult place to be in when the honest person who wants to help can be misled or taken advantage of, whichever side of center you are.

Here's another fun one (sorry if anyone posted this already):

Solar activity and global warming.

So, apparently the big "sunspots cause global warming" study shows that solar irradiance has dropped off since 1975. Whereas average global temperature... no, not so much.

-- Alex

I do know a simple one off the top of my head, "How It All Ends" on youtube is one you can look up. He outlines how to do unbiased research, whether for or against. He, himself, is evidently a believer in global climate change.

You do know that Terry Pratchett used exactly that methodolgy in one of his books to explain why one of the books characters believed in God. The idea being that if you believed, died and god was real you got in to ever lasting paradise. On the other hand if you lived then died and it turned out to be rubbish you didn't lose anything.

The fact is that methodology could be used for real religion. It would be interesting to know, as a science teacher, what he thinks of this application of his risk management chart?

Kwil:

gsf1200:
The earth has always warmed up over time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the earth was much warmer. It cooled down, probably due to asteroid impact, which killed the dinos. Why did it warm back up? It wasn't man! There have been ice ages about every 100,000 years. It warms back up every time. Why? Because the sun supplies slightly more heat than the earth needs. It has happened over and over again without mans help. I am so tired of hearing how man caused the heating when it is obvious that it has occurred many times when men weren't around!

Generalization Fallacy.
Using that logic, we would have to claim that "Every dog I've seen today has been black, therefore every dog I ever will see will be black." It's bad logic. Yes, the sun did cause global warming in times past. These are not those times. The correlation between global warming and the sun disappeared around 1975 as the temperature continued to warm while the sun's output levelled and then receded.

sneakypenguin:
Newsweek 1975 article about the trend towards global cooling

Newsweek is not peer reviewed. There were a total of 7 peer reviewed articles that predicted global cooling in the 70's. There were 42 that predicted global warming. They weren't as alarmist, so they didn't get published. You can find a fuller debunking of this myth here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Better yet, save us all some time and just go through this list: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to find all of the arguments you're going to use already debunked.

I appreciate you including this link. At a cursory glance it is interesting, and I look forward to looking into it more in depth. But the important thing is, it is critical for both sides of the argument to be open minded and take counter arguments seriously, because that is what science is about. When people say "the debate is over" I am going to tune them out immediately. It sets a dangerous precedent when people just begin to dismiss other research simply because it disagrees with their own. Either side of this issue has severe costs. Adjusting for climate change is not free. I recommend a book called "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg, in which he states that it could be more beneficial to mitigate the effects of climate change instead of stopping it, or perhaps spending those resources in other more pressing areas. There is a finite amount of resources available, and people will only tolerate so much personal sacrifice no matter how serious the implications.

sorry Jeffers... but like we come in from the cold when it is a blizzard we have to start to take active steps to preserve ourselves (damn I wish I had the power to be selective about who to preserve) (Me & Keira Knightley)..

basically even left to nature, sometime in the next 10k years, the enviroment is going to screw us over and kill off a couple of billion... Mother nature is a b!tch.. so we must prepare to take steps to roll her 'hood, before she rolls ours.

Semi amusing(or interesting depending how you look at it) article about the mental effects of global warming/climate change.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/?page=2
Sorry for the thread necro.

The planet is going through a warming period anyway, but man is accelerating it. Quite a bit.

Rofl @ 123 people choosing the first option, heh, it's a common misconception ^^ Ofcourse man didn't create global warming, global warming has been around for LOOOONG before man even existed. Heck, without global warming, there would be no life (or at least not the life as we know it) on this planet. No no, ofcourse what we did, is we kicked it up a notch by heavely increasing the CO2 concentration (read: an important thing to remember, yes humans aren't pumping a lot of the stuff in the air in total, but it's not the actual amount of CO2 what matters, it's the concentration in Parts Per Million). We are "just" increasing global warming, not causing it. That's ofcourse bad enough for us, well...us, especially the poor people in country's like Bangladesh or country's depending on melting water for irrigation. The earth will be fine, well actually periodes like this are kind of normal for our planet, we're just screwing ourself over with this. Maaaaajorly.

xxDarlenexx:
It's the reason why polar bears hate us.

No, we're just damn tasty.

Hears a ok vid about it there are several parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME

Hey there, I know this is a bit late but thought I would put it up anyway. Haven't seen it on here yet so here it is...

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
"Global warming" is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend --

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

Here's the link as well:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

And I'm sure if you search it on Google you'll find it...