Spiderman;289409 said:
Actually, I understood global warming to mean more severe extremes in temperatures per the season, not that everything was getting "warmer" in general...
No, the former is a side effect of the latter. Climate is a complex system, but one example I remember of an effect of global warming is that higher temperatures overall cause more melting of ice, which can manifest as more precipitation in some areas. But yeah, strictly speaking, "global warming" refers to the increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere and oceans. That other stuff is the
effects of global warming.
EricBess;289412 said:
I'm all for taking care of the planet, but I also think the whole "global warming" is a man-made crisis. Yes, there is evidence that the temperature has risen, but there is no unrefuted evidence that this isn't just a normal cycle that has happened before and will happen again as oposed to something we caused.
You seem to imply that you don't think global warming is a real phenomenon and then go on in the very next sentence to say that it is, but that it's not anthropogenic. I see this sort of thing pretty much whenever global warming is brought up, but it's baffling to me. Whatever any of our opinions are, the reality is either that there is no global warming, there is global warming and it's not anthropogenic at all, or there is global warming and some portion of it is anthropogenic. It's got to be one of those three. It can't be two of them.
Anyway, I take issue with those espousing that the first position (there is no global warming) is correct because it's so demonstrably wrong. But as for those who reject anthropogenic global warming only, well, that's not necessarily unreasonable. The anthropogenicity of global warming has been debated for decades among climatologists. And knowing to an appreciable degree of confidence how much of an effect human activities have had on the climate is very, very difficult.
However, despite that, there have been some pretty impressive advances in the field in the past several years (the Vostok ice core being my favorite example, but there's so much more). As I understand it, the case for some degree of anthropogenicity is looking pretty strong. But I don't have training in this field. So I have to rely somewhat on the scrutiny of those who do. If someone who understands the science behind this stuff better than I do objects to models or the details being used to support them, then fine. I respect that. But what I usually see is handwaving the problem away by people who have no idea what they're talking about. That's not speaking about you specifically because even though you sound just like other people I know who don't know what they're talking about, maybe you actually do. Maybe you've researched this. I couldn't say...
The main problem I have with Global Warming is that the people who "raised the alarm" are the same people who are in a position to capitalize and make a ton of money if laws are passed to "solve the problem".
Ooh, I've seen this claim too. And I have two very major problems with it. Firstly, I haven't seen evidence that it's true. Secondly, even if it were true, what does it have to do with whether global warming is happening or whether it's anthropogenic? It's a non-issue. If global warming is anthropogenic, it wouldn't matter if the people who "raised the alarm" were the worst scum in history. And if global warming isn't anthropogenic, it wouldn't matter if the people who "raised the alarm" had the very best of intentions. The facts aren't dependent on the identities of the people pointing them out.
Also, I gather that you're referring to politicians, who haven't ever really been the people I'd say really raised the alarm on this. All any politician ever did was repeat (sometimes badly) what scientists had already said. Well, sometimes the politicians just make crap up too. But as for the scientists, while it's not impossible for them to falsify results, they tend to get caught rather quickly and once they're caught, they're ostracized.
If it were just politicians involved, I'd say sure, politicians lie and mislead the public for personal gain. But scientists don't have that luxury.
And I guess I'm a bit cynical also being old enough to remember when we were worried about "the next ice age" less than 30 years ago.
Another favorite of my dad's and a really, really bad excuse. This is tantamount to, "Well, I don't actually know anything about climate, but a while back some people made a prediction and it was wrong. Therefore, this prediction is wrong too."
EricBess;289419 said:
turgy, the reason I joke about it is because I've heard people actual being serious when they say that things equally rediculous are caused by global warming.
Haven't you heard that two wrongs don't make a right? But seriously, I have seen that a little too and I hate it.
