View Single Post
Old 05-13-2014, 09:45 AM   #82
ken0042
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
 
ken0042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
35 years ago it was global cooling. Well, they messed that up so they switched it to global warming. Well, that hasn't panned out either so now they call it climate change. Blah blah blah. We're tired of their extremist stupidity."
I realize this was a facebook post you were quoting, but one of the issues to the people believing in man-made CO2 causing climate change is that there have been different variations over the years.

In the 1970s it was global cooling. There was even plans proposes on how to raise the planet's temperature.
In the 1990s it was CFCs causing holes in our ozone layer.
At the turn of the century it was global warming
This decade the name was changed to "climate change"- which is a more accurate description.

Then the number one set of numbers being given is a correlation between the increase in temperature, and the increase in CO2 levels. However there are other things that correlate; without being related. The silliest is the one we have all seen showing the decrease in the number of pirates being inversely proportional to the global temperatures.

While we all know that one is silly, the one thing that is almost never brought up is what is happening with the sun. It isn't unreasonable that in increase in solar activity could cause climate change on the earth, however that is rarely ruled out as the cause. I have also seen things that correlate our use of nuclear energy with climate change, as well as one that talks about our electricity and radio frequency use. Those last two are both directly proportional to the increase in global temperatures.

I did recently see a documentary that showed why CO2 levels are the most likely cause of climate change. It went far beyond the correlation and used a lot of good science to make the point; which was great to see. (I wish I could remember what it was called.)

I think part of the problem is that by dumbing it down to just the correlation, it leaves room for doubt. Especially with an extremely plausible theory (solar activity) being out there.
ken0042 is offline   Reply With Quote