You Choose If Global Warming Is Real

[Knowledge_Seeker]

I feel that as a citizen of the Earth, it is my responsibility to pass this on. If you haven't seen this video already, watch it. This man gives fair arguments for both sides (for/against global warming) and he does it all withough giving any specific details, and he makes a very good point.

If you have any opinion on global warming, be sure to watch it to the end.
http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Edit: Also, I did not see anything to argue or anything false that he said. If you feel something that is arguable please share.

[Noclevername]

????

"You choose if it's real?"

Either it's real or it isn't.

[Knowledge_Seeker]

????

"You choose if it's real?"

Either it's real or it isn't.

?

Exactly.

[Noclevername]

I meant, what we choose to think about it has no effect on whether it's real.

Maybe something like, "You can decide what to think about Global Warming" would be better. Or, come to think of it, just say something like "This video talks impartially about GW", since the video is the focus of your OP.

[nauthiz]

That and the video isn't about choosing whether AGW is real - one of the explicit premises of the argument it presents is that, at the moment, we can't be 100% sure either way.

Gotta admit, I think it's compelling - but then, I sit in the AGW camp so I'm probably not a good person to ask.

[Knowledge_Seeker]

I meant, what we choose to think about it has no effect on whether it's real.

Maybe something like, "You can decide what to think about Global Warming" would be better. Or, come to think of it, just say something like "This video talks impartially about GW", since the video is the focus of your OP.

Oh, okay, sorry about the confusion. I tried to have a meaninful title. I actually wanted to say what your first title was. I wanted people to have their own opinion.

[snarkophilus]

There is a fairly detailed discussion about what's wrong with that argument in the comments here. Read mine. They are the good ones.

The short response is that it doesn't make logical sense to a) treat the problem in a discrete way like that, considering only the maximum/minimum effects; and b) completely ignore the probabilities of the various scenarios.

[MrClean]

I just wonder what the next major catastrophe you all are going to get upset about and run around in the streets yelling "We're all going to die" will be.

Humans, absolutely no sense of proportion.

[Ronald Brak]

I just wonder what the next major catastrophe you all are going to get upset about and run around in the streets yelling "We're all going to die" will be.

Humans, absolutely no sense of proportion.

I've never seen humans do that even when there was a disaster killing people.

Must be a cultural difference.

[Paracelsus]

I just wonder what the next major catastrophe you all are going to get upset about and run around in the streets yelling "We're all going to die" will be.

Humans, absolutely no sense of proportion.

Humans in general may have no sense of proportion, but the scientific community usually does.

When mainstream scientists start saying that death and destruction is at hand, it should give one pause to think.

[NEOWatcher]

Humans in general may have no sense of proportion, but the scientific community usually does.

When mainstream scientists start saying that death and destruction is at hand, it should give one pause to think.

The problem is that the scientists say the problem could be anywhere from x to z, and the reporter interviewing them says "WE COULD BE HEADED FOR z".

Of course, I'm not implying x is not bad, just not as bad.

[GOURDHEAD]

The author of the video neglects to include an important factor---the definition of what constructive corrective action would be. My guess is that he assumes that lowering CO2 content of the atmosphere is its principal feature. There is no conclusive proof of this. Just doing something without knowing whether we are solving or exasperating the problem could result in something similar to fleeing from a mosasaur into the jaws of tyrannosaurus. Perhaps his grid should be expanded to include unintended consequences.

[Swift]

Humans in general may have no sense of proportion, but the scientific community usually does.

When mainstream scientists start saying that death and destruction is at hand, it should give one pause to think.

Sometimes death and destruction are at hand. When the scientists at the National Weather Service give warnings about tornados or huricanes, are they overreacting?

On the flip side, I don't see any reasonable climate people claiming that global warming will lead to the extinction of the human race or the end of life on this planet. But that doesn't mean that there are not serious consequences for the human race that could lead to death and destruction, at least for some. So please explain how mainstream scientists' statements are out of proportion.

And no, I have not and will not watch the video (can't at work, dial-up at home - sorry).

[Kullat Nunu]

The author of the video neglects to include an important factor---the definition of what constructive corrective action would be. My guess is that he assumes that lowering CO2 content of the atmosphere is its principal feature. There is no conclusive proof of this. Just doing something without knowing whether we are solving or exasperating the problem could result in something similar to fleeing from a mosasaur into the jaws of tyrannosaurus. Perhaps his grid should be expanded to include unintended consequences.

Nobody is lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have no way to do that. What AGW proponents say is that we should lower the amount of CO2 emitted, that is to decrease the increase of CO2.

[nauthiz]

Nobody is lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have no way to do that. What AGW proponents say is that we should lower the amount of CO2 emitted, that is to decrease the increase of CO2.

I recently heard something about a guy who is designing a machine to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. (I think it was Science Friday on NPR.) I was only half listening so I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism, but I think it was some sort of chemical reaction. The term "artificial tree" did come up.

[Tucson_Tim]

I recently heard something about a guy who is designing a machine to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. (I think it was Science Friday on NPR.) I was only half listening so I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism, but I think it was some sort of chemical reaction. The term "artificial tree" did come up.

Now that is interesting. It's the first I've heard of "cleaning up" the problem and it makes sense to me - do both prevention and cleanup.

[Peter Wilson]

When mainstream scientists start saying that death and destruction is at hand, it should give one pause to think.

Are you saying that as long as death and destruction are "just around the corner," and not actually at hand, it should not give us pause to reflect?

[Kullat Nunu]

I recently heard something about a guy who is designing a machine to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. (I think it was Science Friday on NPR.) I was only half listening so I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism, but I think it was some sort of chemical reaction. The term "artificial tree" did come up.

Right, I forgot, one way to get rid of CO2 is to dump it into the ground. Earth's crust seems to be more porous than thought and the process may be cheaper than expected as one doesn't have to resort in empty oil wells and such. Anyway, dumping CO2 is more costly than not letting it into atmosphere in the first place.

[Eckelston]

My guess is that he assumes that lowering CO2 content of the atmosphere is its principal feature. There is no conclusive proof of this. Just doing something without knowing whether we are solving or exasperating the problem could result in something similar to fleeing from a mosasaur into the jaws of tyrannosaurus.

I've never heard anyone seriously argue that pumping less CO₂ could somehow make the problem worse.

[Noclevername]

Nobody is lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have no way to do that.

It could be done, though first we'd have to lower our emissions all the way to the balance point (that is, our output equals what the Earth can naturally absorb) Then plant a lot of trees in currently barren or grassy areas.

Could be done, but with todays technology and economy it wouldn't be practical. For the time being, the stopgap measure of reducing emissions looks like the best bet.

[GOURDHEAD]

I've never heard anyone seriously argue that pumping less CO2 could somehow make the problem worse.

Nor have I. But if you're spending time and energy controlling CO2 when something else is the problem that you should have been spending time and energy on, disaster could befall you. Also, if you succeed too well in reducing CO2, you may expedite an ice age if current concensus is accurate (although I don't believe that'll happen). A severe ice age could render the surface of the Earth less able to support the current human population than the more likely global warming scenarios. We need to understand the problem much more completely.

[Michael Noonan]

It could be done, though first we'd have to lower our emissions all the way to the balance point (that is, our output equals what the Earth can naturally absorb) Then plant a lot of trees in currently barren or grassy areas.

Could be done, but with todays technology and economy it wouldn't be practical. For the time being, the stopgap measure of reducing emissions looks like the best bet.

It is not could we, it is would we. The ideal plant fast growing and very hardy is hemp. Certainly acceptable to some but much harder for many good reasons. One the cotton industry has major vested interests in not promoting this plant.

Governments have problems with it, it goes against the smarter people in the nation plans. On the face of it though the expectations that politicians have of the population (election promises) you would think they are on it.

Among other things it would upset the current growers of the crop.

Finally here in Australia so many things are already a fire hazard the last thing we need is to encourage people to burn the clothing this stuff could make.

That last one is for real, if you ever look in at an alternate lifestyle clothing shop count how many signs it has around begging people not to burn the merchandise or at least buy it first.

[JESMKS]

There was a story in our local newspaper a week ago that studies of the diminishing glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro, which have been used as an example of the effect of global warming, is intirely the result of diminished precipitation and sublimation. the glaciers are always at a temperature below freezing and there has been no melting.

[Noclevername]

Finally here in Australia so many things are already a fire hazard the last thing we need is to encourage people to burn the clothing this stuff could make.

Yeah, especially considering that the clothes are made from stem fibers, which don't get anyone high!

[Lookout]

As I just mentioned in the Q&A forum, my first love is meteorology and you would be surprised to know that many (a large percentage) of meteorologists don't necessarily believe global warming is occurring...or that its man's fault. My personal belief after studying it for several years, is that yes it is occurring and at least some of it is due to man.

However, what bugs just about ALL meteorologists and knowledgeable weather enthusiasts, whether they believe it is occurring or not, is the dooms day predictions by the media and certain political figures that shall remain nameless but I'm sure you are all aware of. Its to the point of being absurd at some of the things that are out there. Everything from global warming increases the threat of asteroid impacts to global warming being blamed for any small scale weather phenomena, to everything else under the sun.

Its rather maddening watching the hysteria and the false proclamations that global warming is in fact the reason for whatever weather disaster strikes. I'll never forget one time a few years ago, a front stalled out over the southeastern U.S. and NBC news saw fit to blame the flooding it produced on global warming. I wanted to throw a brick through the tv.

This is the type of thing that actually hurts those who want to make aware of the danger of global warming, they go too far and it hurts the cause more than it helps.

[Paracelsus]

Are you saying that as long as death and destruction are "just around the corner," and not actually at hand, it should not give us pause to reflect?

Let me re-phrase: if scientists say 'death and destruction' are just around the corner, it should give one pause. If scientists say 'death and destruction' are at hand, it should give one a case of fecal incontinence.

Sorry..couldn't resist, Peter Wilson!

[Paracelsus]

I recently heard something about a guy who is designing a machine to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. (I think it was Science Friday on NPR.) I was only half listening so I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism, but I think it was some sort of chemical reaction. The term "artificial tree" did come up.

I posted about the 'artificial tree' a while back; the post was met with thunderous indifference. Apparantly, the tree idea is still on the drawing board.

[Kullat Nunu]

As I just mentioned in the Q&A forum, my first love is meteorology and you would be surprised to know that many (a large percentage) of meteorologists don't necessarily believe global warming is occurring...or that its man's fault. My personal belief after studying it for several years, is that yes it is occurring and at least some of it is due to man.

Meteorologists are not same as climatologists.

Its rather maddening watching the hysteria and the false proclamations that global warming is in fact the reason for whatever weather disaster strikes. I'll never forget one time a few years ago, a front stalled out over the southeastern U.S. and NBC news saw fit to blame the flooding it produced on global warming. I wanted to throw a brick through the tv.

This is the type of thing that actually hurts those who want to make aware of the danger of global warming, they go too far and it hurts the cause more than it helps.

Couldn't agree more.

[publiusr]

I posted about the 'artificial tree' a while back; the post was met with thunderous indifference. Apparantly, the tree idea is still on the drawing board.

von Neuman had something similar--see the notes in the back of Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind."

[Paracelsus]

Hmm..sounds interesting. Will do.