Global warming world famine

Originally posted by spruce112358
All we know is that it is getting warmer. That evidence is overwhelming: glaciers retreating, permafrost melting, polar bears suffering due to less pack ice, heat-loving plants expanding their ranges northward.

Unfortunately, that's about all we know for sure.

We don't know why it is happening.
We don't know how the planetary ecosystem will react.
We don't know if we could or should try to reverse the trend.

…We don't know why it is happening.
..…

Wrong -perhaps you don't know but science knows. It has multiple causes and natural cycles are part of those causes but it definitely is in part caused by CO2 for basic science says CO2 must cause warming and there is imperial evidence to verify each and every assumption here (such as CO2 absorbs i.r. -this has directly been measured).

….We don't know how the planetary ecosystem will react. ...…

-never for certain -but we can make a few rational and intelligent estimates.

….We don't know if we could or should try to reverse the trend.
…

I am not sure if it is too late to reverse the trend but we can reduce the severity of the outcome by stopping our emissions of CO2. As for if we “should try” -we would be stupid not to at least try.

Originally posted by joe beyser
About 10 years or so ago I watched a scientific documentary about global warming on PBS. I wish I could remember the scientists name so I could look it up now, but he went through his entire lecture and showed the evidence from ice cores, tree rings etc... that sunspot activity was the cause of climate change. It was very convincing. I would watch it agai ...[text shortened]... ents don't really show evidence concerning the matter. Just a lot of scare tactics and emotion.

I remember seeing that scientific documentary. If I recall correctly, it continually made the implicit assumption that there can be only ONE cause of global warming by keep referring to the causes as “THE” cause of global warming with the “THE” implying there is just ONE of them. What is the premise for this assumption? Why can’t there be multiple causes with each contributing to just part of the warming? -after all, that is what the evidence points to. It then, using this erroneous assumption that there MUST be just ONE cause, concludes that as there is some correlation between the sun’s activity and Earth’s temperature that that must be “THE” cause and thus nothing else (including CO2) could also cause temperatures to rise 😛

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…We don't know why it is happening.
..…

Wrong -perhaps you don't know but science knows. It has multiple causes and natural cycles are part of those causes but it definitely is in part caused by CO2 for basic science says CO2 must cause warming and there is imperial evidence to verify each and every assumption here (such as CO2 absorbs i ...[text shortened]... ing our emissions of CO2. As for if we “should try” -we would be stupid not to at least try.[/b]

CO2 does add a little to warming but it is dwarfed by natural causes. That is what science knows. There were periods when co2 was much higher and avg. temp was much lower. I believe that the world wide carbon taxes is why there is political presure to perpetuate the co2 scam. I believed it myself early on but after looking into it I changed my mind about 10 years ago. The arguments on both sides are compelling but the hard evidence leads me to believe what I believe. There are more pressing needs of the world regarding pollution. Too bad this issue is so distracting.

Originally posted by joe beyser
CO2 does add a little to warming but it is dwarfed by natural causes. That is what science knows. There were periods when co2 was much higher and avg. temp was much lower. I believe that the world wide carbon taxes is why there is political presure to perpetuate the co2 scam. I believed it myself early on but after looking into it I changed my mind about ...[text shortened]... are more pressing needs of the world regarding pollution. Too bad this issue is so distracting.

…CO2 does add a little to warming but it is dwarfed by natural causes. That is what science knows. ..…

That is simply not true. I have heard this rhetoric before: “dwarfed by natural causes” in what time period? Are you talking about over many thousands or millions of years? Sure, CO2 induced warming could be “dwarfed by other natural causes” over THOSE periods but what about over just the last 200 years or so? Science has told us that CO2 is responsible for at least half the warming in that period.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3156

-This is a well balanced science link that correctly points out that it isn’t only human activity that causes warming but it also does point out the fact:

“…"MOST of the warming (worldwide) is the consequence of human influences,"
…”(my emphasis)

….There were periods when co2 was much higher and avg. temp was much lower....…

When? Recently? -no. In the distant past? -almost certainly yes; which would only confirm what we already know which is that there are multiple causes of global warming with CO2 being just one of them. This doesn’t in any way refute the hypothesis that most of the very recent warming is due to the increased levels of CO2.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…CO2 does add a little to warming but it is dwarfed by natural causes. That is what science knows. ..…

That is simply not true. I have heard this rhetoric before: “dwarfed by natural causes” in what time period? Are you talking about over many thousands or millions of years? Sure, CO2 induced warming could be “dwarfed by other natural caus ...[text shortened]... ute the hypothesis that most of the very recent warming is due to the increased levels of CO2.[/b]

Those are good questions. I am going to try to find the guy I spoke of earlier on the internet. He studied Ice core samples and tree rings. If there have been any recent fluctuations in temp, like within the last few thousand years I think he can answer that. It doesn't do any good to say x number of scientists are on either side. I am like you in that I want to see the science. I have seen the more recent videos of the subject, but this one shows the science as he was giving a lecture to other scientists. He was from somewhere in Europe.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.

only if you were part of that 80%.

http://filmtalks.net/post/2007/10/30/what-is-normal-a-critique-of-catastrophic-man-made-global-warming-theory/#a

I hadn't seen this video. I found it while looking for the European dude. It isn't that great at showing the science but still not bad. I liked the conclusion he made. I will keep looking

Originally posted by shavixmir
I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.

Well said. I agee even though not sure about 80% being a correct number to achieve this "better place."

I do agree nature will eventually correct mans malfeasance to protect itself by inflicting famine, flood or other trauma at its disposal and "make the world a far better place" when necessary.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…We don't know why it is happening.
..…

Wrong -perhaps you don't know but science knows. It has multiple causes and natural cycles are part of those causes but it definitely is in part caused by CO2 for basic science says CO2 must cause warming and there is imperial evidence to verify each and every assumption here (such as CO2 absorbs i ...[text shortened]... ing our emissions of CO2. As for if we “should try” -we would be stupid not to at least try.[/b]

you say co2 is causing global warming.Why do 31,000 american scientist disagree w/ that?

Originally posted by FMF
How did you handle it in terms of it being a lesson in critical thinking?

You gave them material that you admit was exaggerated and motivated partially by politics and then took a poll.

How did you turn this exercise into something beneficial for this high school science class?

I wanted to show them how the same statistics and numbers could be used by people with opposite agendas to send 2 completely opposite messages. We also discussed the manner in which each presents the facts and statistics in the light most favorable to their sides and then uses emotional arguments to reinforce their facts. In Gore's movie, he used his son's accident and his awakening as a result to appeal to the audience's emotion. In the other one, they use the desire of Africa to develop and the manner in which the anti-global warming measures could hamper that as a way to appeal to emotion. Both had nothing to do with the underlying facts; but both were powerful follow-ups to the dry statistics and served to help reinforce the arguments in the viewers' minds even though, technically, they were both irrelevant.

No doubt you'll remain skeptical, but it was a very interesting series of classes and, I believe, helped the students a lot.

I stated this in another thread but I will repeat it here.Man has contributed less than 0.3 degrees c to warning and by 2100 may contribute 0.4 . Reducing man made co2 will not save the planet but will cost billions of dollars.co2 is not a pollutant and reducing it does nothing to abate the real problem,pollutants such as sulphur, particulates,metals ,etc. Thats what the focus should be on,not the false science of catastophic man made global warming

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I stated this in another thread but I will repeat it here.Man has contributed less than 0.3 degrees c to warning and by 2100 may contribute 0.4 . Reducing man made co2 will not save the planet but will cost billions of dollars.co2 is not a pollutant and reducing it does nothing to abate the real problem,pollutants such as sulphur, particulates,metals ...[text shortened]... . Thats what the focus should be on,not the false science of catastophic man made global warming

I think the projections are a lot more than 0.4 degrees.

The degree numbers sound small.But, we have to remember that 5 degrees is the difference between what we have today and an ice age where the land I'm typing this on might be covered by glaciers.

Originally posted by sh76
I think the projections are a lot more than 0.4 degrees.

The degree numbers sound small.But, we have to remember that 5 degrees is the difference between what we have today and an ice age where the land I'm typing this on might be covered by glaciers.

Im quoting that figure from Dr.Leonard Weistein. 45 yrs.senior research scientist NASA. Currently,senior research fellow at the national inst. of aero space

Originally posted by utherpendragon
you say co2 is causing global warming.Why do 31,000 american scientist disagree w/ that?

Are all those scientists climate scientists?
How many thousands of scientists disagree with them? -are they in a minority?
In every profession you will get some that go against the basic principles of their profession and science is no exception.
Why do the majority of climate scientists agree that CO2 warms the planet?
(NOT implying here that what the majority of scientists think is what really counts but rather the majority of climate scientists agree that CO2 warms the planet for a good reason i.e. basic science says it should and also the evidence points to this).

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Im quoting that figure from Dr.Leonard Weistein. 45 yrs.senior research scientist NASA. Currently,senior research fellow at the national inst. of aero space

…SUPPORT that please! How do you KNOW!
..… (my emphasis)

Is he a climate scientist?
Has he done actual research into climate change?
Where did he get his figures from?
Do the majority of climate scientists agree with his figures?
Somehow I don’t think so:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm

“…the average global temperature is projected to rise 1.4—5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of more than 1,500 scientists
…”

Even a 1.4—5.8C rise doesn’t sound a lot but it would cause devastating drought in some areas and devastating storms in other areas and even a relatively small increase in sea level would cause serious problems for many coastal defences.

Actually, to be honest, all the environmental issues above has absolutely nothing to do with the real reason why I think we should get rid of our dependency on oil -if we don’t get rid of our dependency on oil before it becomes too scarce then the devastating economic repercussions would cause a world famine and we could virtually go back to the stone age existence. Would you want that? To preserve our modern way of life we need to adapt to the situation and fast and that means developing and using economical alternatives to oil.