global warming

[chris98e]

The buddha surely talked about how worlds end. This world seems to have no more than 500 years to it before it heats up to the point where a person couldn't live on it. Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe in global warming?

[Sam Vara]

The buddha surely talked about how worlds end. This world seems to have no more than 500 years to it before it heats up to the point where a person couldn't live on it. Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe in global warming?

Yes, many people are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
is a good example. Debates about it are often extremely, um, heated. I'm very far from being an expert, but the tone of such exchanges seems to indicate that a lot of people on both sides of the debate are citing evidence that they don't really understand.

[Alex123]

See this:

[Alex123]

Yes, many people are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming.

I am skeptical about anthropogenic global warming where the average temperature has been going down in the past 10s of millions of years when humans were on this planet.

I am skeptical when someone uses "climate change denier" as ad hominem implying that if one doesn't believe the party line, one is like holocaust denier and perhaps a closet nazi.
I don't know ANYONE who denies that climate change. Even those who do not believe in Jesus or anthropogenic Global warming claim that climate DOES change. Climate does change and has been doing so for 4.5 billion years and on planet Mars as well.

Climate changes on Mars and other planets. Are human's carbon emissions to be blamed for that?

[danieLion]

Climate change "science" predictions, as Alex123's posts demonstrate, are based on insufficient sample sizes which qualifies the predictions as commissions of the informal fallacy known as hasty generalization, a.k.a.:

-the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data

-generalization from the particular/leaping to a conclusion/hasty induction/secundum quid: inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence; essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables

Relating again to Alex123's posts, climate change "science" also involves the commission of the informal fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. a.k.a., correlation proves causation--a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. In this case, the fallacy is committed when the claim is made that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. It also involves the informal fallacies of the single cause (causal oversimplification)--it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes (which takes us back to hasty generalization); incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison; regression fallacy--ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy; argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so; and an appeal to emotion--where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning, in this instance it is a special appeal to fear where the argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice not only towards to the opposing side but aslo by appealing to an imminent yet somehow unknown future danger.

Science has never been completely divorced from politics/religion (otherwise Socrates wouldn't have been executed; Giordano Bruno wouldn't have been burned at the stake, Nicolaus Copernicus wouldn't have feared publishing his works on heliocentricsm, Johannes Kepler would have been paid proper attention to until Newton utilized his work; Leonardo da Vinci wouldn't have been accused of being a heretic, and Galileo Galilei wouldn't have been investigated by the Roman Inquistion. Today, our "religion" comes in the form of "secular humanism", personified in the fatuous propoganda of global warming spokespeople like Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and Kofi Annan.) However, a tell-tale sign of bad science and pseudo-science is how many logical fallacies it contains. In the case of climate change, the fallacies are glaring.

So, before you join the herd and start believing that your actions are ruining the planet, save yourself some grief and first think critically about what so called climate change "science" and its inane spokespeople are actually saying. If you do, I think you'll find that it devolves to a mob-like mentality where basic human experiences of guilt are manipulated by alleged moral do-gooders to serve their agendas, which themselves boil down to just one more way to get your tax dollars. You wouldn't give them up so easily if you didn't think they'd actually "save the planet," would you?

[Sam Vara]

Climate does change and has been doing so for 4.5 billion years and on planet Mars as well.

Indeed, if it is conditioned, it changes. Anicca, Panta rhei, and all that.

Climate changes on Mars and other planets. Are human's carbon emissions to be blamed for that?

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who cares about this. Sorry! The OP was asking if there is anyone out there who does not believe in global warming. There are many who deny the reality of AGW, and of those, I believe that there are some who deny that any kind of warming is taking place. In addition, there are many who do not believe in global warming because they take no view on the matter.

[Kim O'Hara]

The buddha surely talked about how worlds end. This world seems to have no more than 500 years to it before it heats up to the point where a person couldn't live on it. Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe in global warming?

Yep - usual suspects.

Kim

[danieLion]

Yep - usual suspects.

Kim

Kim. Drop the innuendo and admit you're committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so--when you make snarky, snide comments like this.

What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?

[polarbuddha101]

Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe in global warming?

My geology professor. He says that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is actually quite low in comparison to other periods of time in earth's history when life flourished. Also, we happen to be coming out of an ice age so warming is to be expected. Technically though, we're still in an ice age. He says that people who believe in (Edit: Human caused) global warming either don't know about or purposely ignore the geologic record.

The only reason global warming matters at all is that if it's real then it threatens the environment, but the fact is that solar panels and wind mills do less to save the environment than actually protecting the forests and wildlife that are still around, so people should focus on saving habitat and wildlife not buying solar panels or developing new ones in my opinion. Of course, if you can do both, go right ahead, but conservation of the environment (by consolidating wilderness into national parks and teaching people why poaching is ultimately bad for their own local economies) takes precedence over solar panels any day in my opinion. So if you have to decide between getting a prius or donating a few thousand or a few hundred dollars to protect the rainforest or to save elephants in Africa, save the elephants, the damn car can wait. Anyway, that's my spiel. I say it because I've ran across quite a few self-professed environmentalists who complain and gripe about coal and oil and don't even mention the loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat which seems to me to be a ridiculously more important issue.

[danieLion]

Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe in global warming?

My geology professor. He says that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is actually quite low in comparison to other periods of time in earth's history when life flourished. Also, we happen to be coming out of an ice age so warming is to be expected. Technically though, we're still in an ice age. He says that people who believe in global warming either don't know about or purposely ignore the geologic record.

The only reason global warming matters at all is that if it's real then it threatens the environment, but the fact is that solar panels and wind mills do less to save the environment than actually protecting the forests and wildlife that are still around, so people should focus on saving habitat and wildlife not buying solar panels or developing new ones in my opinion. Of course, if you can do both, go right ahead, but conservation of the environment (by consolidating wilderness into national parks and teaching people why poaching is ultimately bad for their own local economies) takes precedence over solar panels any day in my opinion. So if you have to decide between getting a prius or donating a few thousand or a few hundred dollars to protect the rainforest or to save elephants in Africa, save the elephants, the damn car can wait. Anyway, that's my spiel. I say it because I've ran across quite a few self-professed environmentalists who complain and gripe about coal and oil and don't even mention the loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat which seems to me to be a ridiculously more important issue.

To quote another geologist, James Hutton, from his conclusion of Theory of the Earth:

WE have now got to the end of our reasoning; we have no data further to conclude immediately from that which actually is: But we have got enough; we have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature; in like manner as, from seeing revolutions of the planets, it is concluded, that there is a system by which they are intended to continue those revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for any thing higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end.

In other words, our knowledge is too limted to produce a sufficient sample to say anything meaningful about climate change "science" or global warming/cooling. Doing otherwise just feeds our illusions of how important we think we are.

[Kim O'Hara]

What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?

Hi, Daniel,
I was really thinking about Alex and http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963.
I do apologise to you, SamVara and PB if you weren't part of that.

Yep - usual suspects.

Kim

Kim. Drop the innuendo and admit you're committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so--when you make snarky, snide comments like this.

No fallacy of argumentum ad populum, no innuendo, no snarky, no snide. Simple, honest, obvious, plainspoken - that's me.


Kim

[manas]

'Global Warming'...now that's a term I haven't heard in a while.

Sometime over the last few years, the phenomenon was renamed 'Climate Change' to more precisely reflect what is actually taking place...

- think about that one for a bit...

kind regards

[daverupa]

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

source

[manas]

'Global Warming'...now that's a term I haven't heard in a while.

Sometime over the last few years, the phenomenon was renamed 'Climate Change'.

Think about that one for a bit...why was it renamed? Why not just call it 'Global Warming' as before?

kind regards

[daverupa]

Think about that one for a bit...why was it renamed?

To correct misunderstandings and clarify, as much as is possible in a short phrase, the consequences of the observed phenomenon.

I recently came across some interesting articles, one about the striking glacial ice loss, another connecting increased methane levels worldwide with the rise of Chinese and European civilizations.

But the insinuation, above, is probably indicative of what's in store for the thread...

[polarbuddha101]

I will admit I have absolutely no idea how much man made greenhouse gas emissions are REALLY responsible for recent changes in global climate. The variables seem to be too many to conclude, only this is true, anything else is worthless. However, cars aren't going anywhere anytime soon and forests seem to be going too quickly. The fact is that without a whole lot of forest there will be a whole lot of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere for a longer period of time, hence I reiterate that we should be more concerned with protecting wilderness areas than with buying a prius.

[manas]

I will admit I have absolutely no idea how much man made greenhouse gas emissions are REALLY responsible for recent changes in global climate. The variables seem to be too many to conclude, only this is true, anything else is worthless. However, cars aren't going anywhere anytime soon and forests seem to be going too quickly. The fact is that without a whole lot of forest there will be a whole lot of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere for a longer period of time, hence I reiterate that we should be more concerned with protecting wilderness areas than with buying a prius.

Please let's focus on stopping the near constant clearfelling of forests, the destruction of wild animal habitats, topsoil erosion and salinity, protecting biodiversity...there is so much that is indisputably important, that we can all get to work on instead. And when will people in general stop having so many babies?? If we could just stop that one thing alone, many of these other issues would, over the long term, be corrected. If we continue to grow the world's population as we currently are, no amount of clever carbon trapping technology will save us. We will basically eat ourselves to extinction.

[Alex123]

'Global Warming'...now that's a term I haven't heard in a while.

Because it has not been happening, so some people made a good move by renaming it to "climate change". Of course climate changes, and nobody denies this. Thus no matter what happens, proponents of AGW can claim that they are still right...

A hotter than usual day? Man made global warming!
A colder than usual day? Oh, its an effect of man made global warming!


Climate does change on Earth, Mars, today and billions of years ago.

[Alex123]

And when will people in general stop having so many babies?? If we could just stop that one thing alone, many of these other issues would, over the long term, be corrected.

Pollution, radiation, etc can do that. Unfortunately there is too much of that already. Radiation damages DNA making people sicker and die younger, and can also affect fertility rate. Some couples choose not to have kids if that means kids born with birth defects.

My concern for human race and animals is man made pollution, especially nuclear waste.

[manas]

And when will people in general stop having so many babies?? If we could just stop that one thing alone, many of these other issues would, over the long term, be corrected.

Pollution, radiation, etc can do that. Unfortunately there is too much of that already. Radiation damages DNA making people sicker and die younger, and can also affect fertility rate. Some couples choose not to have kids if that means kids born with birth defects.

My concern for human race and animals is man made pollution, especially nuclear waste.

It doesn't need to be a drastic affair. People worldwide ought to be encouraged to either not have children, or to just have one. Financial incentives could be put in place. *Strictly voluntary* sterilizations could be offered free of charge on a mass scale. That way, people who cannot control their sexual urges, can engage in them without the often inevitable result - children that, when unplanned for or unwanted, often end up uncared for or even abandoned, and further and further swell global population growth. Imho, this is the 'elephant in the room', the real global emergency, but whenever anyone talks as I did publicly, they can really get pilloried for it. It's not considered very 'PC' to say what I just said above.