Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[kirant]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...te-change.html

It actually was about man made climate science, a much more debatable fact (good and bad science exists in that field).

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm actually just doing a research inquiry project on global warming, whether or not it is really happening, should it be a cause for concern, etc.

After I've done some digging and am finished I'll let you guys know what I come up with.

Actually, if anyone has any recommendations on resources I'd greatly appreciate it.

Have you thought about focusing your project on the distinction between naturally occurring climate change and human caused climate change?

Just a friendly suggestion. Anything labeled 'global warming' today is almost immediately dismissed.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Have you thought about focusing your project on the distinction between naturally occurring climate change and human caused climate change?

Just a friendly suggestion. Anything labeled 'global warming' today is almost immediately dismissed.

Actually, I would disagree with that. Global warming is still alive and well is most if not all scientific streams of research. What researchers are evaluating are the causes and effects of global warming.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by calgaryred

if I don't believe it then I don't believe it exists

if you don't believe in God, then to you it doesn't exist

The specious schlock that passes for logic these days is frightening.

Un-fataing-believable.

You sir, get three bag-over-head emoticons.

[Tinordi]

BTW, on sources to review global warming there are two types:

Scientific research: conducted mostly through scientific societies and academies, like for example, NASA, The Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Or scientific journals, for your case Science and Nature would be all you need to review.

The other stream is: Blogs

Just google climate change and blogs and you'll get lots. I would have you note that the credibility of any blog related to original content is about 1/100th of the credibility of the sources mentioned above. Why? Well because you can write whatever you want on a blog without anyone questioning you and prodding you to justify your comments or research. You can't do that with the above sources.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by calgaryred

if I don't believe it then I don't believe it exists

if you don't believe in God, then to you it doesn't exist

Do you believe in facts?

Here's the amount of green house gasses in our atmosphere over the past 2000 years in ppm and ppb

Now do you see any correlation between the industrial revolution and the increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

Now, here's a graph of the average global increase of temperature over the last 2000 years
Now considering the effects of greenhouse gasses on ozone, do you see any correlation between the two?
And before anyone says that a global temperature increase of 0.6 isn't important needs to read a book.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You seem like a reasonable guy. Why would you not be on the train? Pretty hard not to be when you actually read up on it.

Because anybody that is a reasonable must also be skeptical or open to reason from all sides of an argument by definition. I look at the politicization of the climate change movement as more a social and psychological issue than a scientific proof. People and societies are chronically guilty of being short-sighted and when you look at the longer timescale, the period of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a mere blip on the history of the earth.

We know that the temperatures on earth have swung widely from colder to warmer, many instances even recorded during the recorded history of civilization with plenty more scientific evidence showing such periods in prehistory.

The explanations for these changes are usually from large global or space borne reasons. Asteroid collisions and volcanic activity throwing up dust, magnetic pole flips, massive changes in oceans and fauna changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, and most often - changes in solar activity. The sun is the largest cause of temperature change and I believe people are falsely correlating a lot of our climate change issues with actions of our own doing and believing that this is something we have any efficacy to change.

It's human nature to seek an explanation for something because in our evolution, the guy who heard a noise that went to check what it was was more likely to live longer than the guy who didn't. We also need to believe we have control or the ability to interact with those things and that fuels and that causes everything from religion or superstition in the human psyche. I see the same thing in the fad-like adoption of the throngs of demagogy that flock toward the climate change debate.

Climate change might even be saving large parts of civilization. Ice ages have occured with a regular period over hundreds of thousands of years. If you believe in man-made climate change, did you ever stop to think that it might be saving us from another glacial age which would probably wipe out most developed nations?

I'm no professional scientist, just admittedly a nerd in areas that interest me and I have looked at lot of evidence and have drawn my own conclusions. I'm not saying that there isn't overwhelming scientific evidence for antropogenic global warming as there is. But there is also evidence on the other side and I can't help but notice the rash of political support and funding that seems to be extremely partisan in which studies are funded or promoted. I take issue with that and my main interest in climate change is not in the climate change itself, but the political and social consequences of it.

I think changes in climate are mostly out of our control and due to solar activity or other natural factors. That is not to say that I don't believe in protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, limiting emissions, developing alternative energy, being "green", etc. I believe you should do those things irregardless and there are plenty of other reasons for that than jumping on the climate change bandwagon which presents a science that is not objective enough or complete enough to be convincing to me.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Do you believe in facts?

Here's the amount of green house gasses in our atmosphere over the past 2000 years in ppm and ppb

Now do you see any correlation between the industrial revolution and the increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

Now, here's a graph of the average global increase of temperature over the last 2000 years
Now considering the effects of greenhouse gasses on ozone, do you see any correlation between the two?
And before anyone says that a global temperature increase of 0.6 isn't important needs to read a book.

2000 years means nothing on the geological timescale of the earth It's ridiculously short sighted and there is a possibility that people and scientists could be deriving causating separate phenomena from incomplete evidence that are merely correlations.

For most of the holoscene, human civilization has developed during an interglacial period with periodic rises and dips in temperature that often mirror the same things we have seen in the past 2000 years.

The rise in industrial emissions and the resulting correlation of a change of a few degrees could simply be coinciding with a period of change in solar output or solar activity or other geological or meteorological phenomenon that is not as easily charted and graphed for the masses to consume.

Prior to the 20th century, the earth was in a little-ice age since the 16th century. Prior to that was the Medieval warming period in which temperatures could be interpreted to coincide with the warmer temperatures we have now.

If you want to post data causating emissions with climate change, please use a longer scale than 2000. About 60 million years is more appropriate as the Paleocene was the start of modern fauna which confer the greatest effect upon the carbon chemistry in our atmosphere.

If you do that, you'll find that there have been countless significant rises and falls in global temperature, often just as rapid, over thousands and millions of years without humans even existing on this planet to create carbon emissions.

Anyone that says that a global temperature increase of 0.6 is so totally transparent and 100% caused by man needs to read more than one book.

Look, I can post graphs too which show something remarkable with large emotional response! I will not however, claim that this is a definite proof with 100% scientific accuracy to predict our future.

[Tinordi]

Because anybody that is a reasonable must also be skeptical or open to reason from all sides of an argument by definition. I look at the politicization of the climate change movement as more a social issue than a scientific proof. People and societies are chronically guilty of being short-sighted and when you look at the longer timescale, the period of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a mere blip on the history of the earth.

So you're saying that because the Earth is so old and weathered that humans could possibly have an effect on its systems?

We know that the temperatures on earth have swung widely from colder to warmer, many instances even recorded during the recorded history of civilization with plenty more scientific evidence showing such periods in prehistory.

We also know that we've never seen this rate of change in temperature before using at least 3 completely different datasets. So if you believe the historical record of climate why are you dismissing its biggest contribution to the field?

I think changes in climate are mostly out of our control and due to solar activity.

What makes you think that? There's basically no shred of evidence to it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What makes you think that? There's basically no shred of evidence to it.

This is exactly why I spend as little time arguing with climate change fanatics as possible because they are unreasonable and impartial and blind themselves to contrary evidence from all my experiences. It's almost like a religious argument with some of the people I've met. Pretend something is not there and we are 100% right all the time.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=s...h&as_sdt=1%2C5

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So you're saying that because the Earth is so old and weathered that humans could possibly have an effect on its systems?

It has nothing to do with the age and ruggedness of the earth. Merely an insufficient sample size of evidence that puts unbalanced weight upon the influence of humans. It's no wonder we automatically correlate observable effects to human activity because they coincide on the same tiny slice of the geological timescale when there are many more compelling reasons for it that have perfectly legitimate scientific evidence backing it as well.

[Hack&Lube]

Keep in mind, I am for the political movement toward environmentally friendly policies and I'm all for alternative energy and reducing carbon emissions because the environment (specifically biological life and ecosystems) are incredibly fragile even if the earth and some persistent and hardy species are not (humans, insects, fungi).

I just don't agree with the mass movement which borders on ideological fanaticism for me and I don't agree with imposing environmental constraints and treaties upon developing countries. The Western world got to pollute as much as it wanted in it's rise through industrialization. Other countries need to be given deference out of economic necessity.

[Tinordi]

It's not religious fanaticism. I just want you show me where there are scientists saying that this warming period is due to solar activity. I'm not saying that the sun doesn't have an important role to play the warming of the earth. But if, as you say, it's the reason, then we should be cooler now then 50 years because solar intensity is actually lower. Instead we're hotter, but a statistically significant margin. So, where's the evidence?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

2000 years means nothing on the geological timescale of the earth It's ridiculously short sighted and there is a possibility that people and scientists could be deriving causating separate phenomena from incomplete evidence that are merely correlations.

For most of the holoscene, human civilization has developed during an interglacial period with periodic rises and dips in temperature that often mirror the same things we have seen in the past 2000 years.

The rise in industrial emissions and the resulting correlation of a change of a few degrees could simply be coinciding with a period of change in solar output or solar activity or other geological or meteorological phenomenon that is not as easily charted and graphed for the masses to consume.

Prior to the 20th century, the earth was in a little-ice age since the 16th century. Prior to that was the Medieval warming period in which temperatures could be interpreted to coincide with the warmer temperatures we have now.

If you want to post data causating emissions with climate change, please use a longer scale than 2000. About 60 million years is more appropriate as the Paleocene was the start of modern fauna which confer the greatest effect upon the carbon chemistry in our atmosphere.

If you do that, you'll find that there have been countless significant rises and falls in global temperature, often just as rapid, over thousands and millions of years without humans even existing on this planet to create carbon emissions.

Anyone that says that a global temperature increase of 0.6 is so totally transparent and 100% caused by man needs to read more than one book.

Look, I can post graphs too which show something remarkable with large emotional response! I will not however, claim that this is a definite proof with 100% scientific accuracy to predict our future.

You want evidence? Sure
Here we go.
This is the earth's ozone layer from 1979 to 2010 viewed from the south pole

and from the north pole

The blue is the deterioration of the ozone layer, and the growing deterioration is in DIRECT correlation with spiking omissions, all which break down the element O3, which is ozone.
This is what the global climate change is predicted to be in the next 60-90 years


Meaning that all that ice in the arctic will melt causing mass flooding and the deaths of millions of ecosystems.

I have taken my geology classes, I know all about the changing global temperature from the Hadean age to the Phanerozoic. The kicker is that the Ozone layer wasn't disintegrating during any other age but the Hadean, and that's because it didn't exist yet.

Having this much variation in this short of time is not natural and people need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's not religious fanaticism. I just want you show me where there are scientists saying that this warming period is due to solar activity. I'm not saying that the sun doesn't have an important role to play the warming of the earth. But if, as you say, it's the reason, then we should be cooler now then 50 years because solar intensity is actually lower. Instead we're hotter, but a statistically significant margin. So, where's the evidence?

Statistically, 50 years or even 2000 years means very little. Real measures of climate change, Co2 levels, and solar activity need to be examined on a much larger scale.

There is plenty of evidence out there and scientists who believe in solar activity (and other geological, meteorological and even biological feedback loops) as being the major contributors to climate change. Go and look yourself if you really have an open and curious mind. I guarantee it is out there. It simply is not proliferated as much as all the material on the unobjective and unpartisan global warming material that is thrown out ad nauseam all over the internet. Read scientific journals, scholarly articles, etc. When I was at university, I'd use my account to look up journals or pull random ones at the library to read. It's out there. Do it yourself. I don't like people who post mass produced graphs and charts on the internet and go: "THERE EVIDENCE!". I could easily do that and not prove anything except reliance on shoddy populist internet information (see above).

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This is exactly why I spend as little time arguing with climate change fanatics as possible because they are unreasonable and impartial and blind themselves to contrary evidence from all my experiences.

Don't overreact, I read him as saying that there's no evidence that the current warming is due to solar input, not that solar input has no impact on climate at all.

The sun accounts for the vast majority of heat on our world.

So how do you tell the difference between a fanatic and someone who's looked at the contrary evidence and decided that it isn't evidence or it isn't contrary?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Statistically, 50 years or even 2000 years means very little. Real measures of climate change, Co2 levels, and solar activity need to be examined on a much larger scale.

There is plenty of evidence out there and scientists who believe in solar activity (and other geological, meteorological and even biological feedback loops) as being the major contributors to climate change. Go and look yourself if you really have an open and curious mind. I guarantee it is out there. It simply is not proliferated as much as all the material on the unobjective and unpartisan global warming material that is thrown out ad nauseam all over the internet. Read scientific journals, scholarly articles, etc. When I was at university, I'd use my account to look up journals or pull random ones at the library to read. It's out there. Do it yourself. I don't like people who post mass produced graphs and charts on the internet and go: "THERE EVIDENCE!". I could easily do that and not prove anything except reliance on shoddy populist internet information (see above).

If by shoddy populist internet information, you mean University courses taught by PhD's who have studied the area for decades, then yes, you are correct.

[Tinordi]

You're implying I don't do that. I've asked for the goods are you aren't giving them out.

I think we both think the same thing with respect to climate change. You want us to decarbonize even though you're skeptical and I'm not as skeptical of the evidence and therefore want us to decarbonize.

The Economist had a good passage a while back saying that even if you're skeptical, the global costs are something like 2-3% of what we would have grown anyway. And considering the potentially disastrous ramifications, this is like payina 2-3% insurance premium to mitigate against those outcomes. If you think about it, you pay at least that much of your income per year for life insurance why wouldn't we do it for the life of our planet too?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cole436

You want evidence? Sure
Here we go.
This is the earth's ozone layer from 1979 to 2010 viewed from the south pole

and from the north pole

The blue is the deterioration of the ozone layer, and the growing deterioration is in DIRECT correlation with spiking omissions, all which break down the element O3, which is ozone.
This is what the global climate change is predicted to be in the next 60-90 years

Meaning that all that ice in the arctic will melt causing mass flooding and the deaths of millions of ecosystems.

I have taken my geology classes, I know all about the changing global temperature from the Hadean age to the Phanerozoic. The kicker is that the Ozone layer wasn't disintegrating during any other age but the Hadean, and that's because it didn't exist yet.

Having this much variation in this short of time is not natural and people need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize it.

Talking about the Saskatchewan Roughriders does not provide any clues into why the Calgary Flames sucked in November.

The hole in the ozone layer is a different phenomenon. The breakdown of O3 is a completely different issue from the increase in greenhouse gases and the rise in global temperature caused by entrapment of the solar energy in our atmosphere.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by endemic chlorofluorocarbon emissions and is one brilliant example of political, scientific, and popular momentum causing an improvement in what was an environmental catastrophe as legislations and regulations against those emissions have caused the hole in the ozone layer to return to nominal levels.

The existence of a hole in the ozone layer and it's increase and decrease due to CFC emissions was easily tracked. Temperature change and the causes of it are much less readily determined and no, there is no consensus and yes the science is still debatable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Statistically, 50 years or even 2000 years means very little. Real measures of climate change, Co2 levels, and solar activity need to be examined on a much larger scale.

Except if they happen on a smaller scale. Just because changes over long periods exist does not mean that changes over shorter periods are not possible, or that they are not important.

Statistically speaking the earth has historically been inhospitable to human life.

Arguing that there are changes not influenced by humans is not an argument that this change is not influenced by humans.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

There is plenty of evidence out there and scientists who believe in solar activity (and other geological, meteorological and even biological feedback loops) as being the major contributors to climate change.

And just because it exists doesn't mean it's accurate or legitimate. How does one tell the difference?

[guzzy]

Did you go outside this month? This has been a brutal winter.