Scientists Agree Global Warming is Real

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/ eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=b22 8f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

A link to more links for your reading pleasure.

Original Post by jeffmidguard:

Windshield scraping is still optional.

 ...and a means of improving the gene pool.

 And a link to show why that interpretation of the Antarctic ice cap data is nonsense.

 The National Post? Seriously? These poster children for accuracy in reporting? 

 Which is about the level of accuracy in their denialist reporting.

Short layman's overview of the denialist position and why it's wrong.

Longer, more detailed explanations for fact nerds like me. Of course, people with a religious belief in the magical market forces fairy treat climate science like an attack on their religion, but we seriously can't stop to cater to every religious loony who treats the market conditions under a given set of man-made laws as being as real as gravity.

Better ramp up the rhetoric another notch. Recent polls are showing that global warming is now only perhaps the 20th most important thing on the minds of the majority.  Until people are less worried about the economy in general, finding work, keeping their houses, ending the current wars, global warming will have to sit on the back burner.

Why make the connection between global warming and market forces.  By doing that it seems you're making the case that there is reason to distort the data.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by trhawley:

I wasn't aware that there was any doubt that Global Warming was real.  

Well, as you stated, some of it is as simple as people acknowledging the warming, but don't believe it's affected by human behavior.

However, I have run into some that don't believe climate change exists at all, and like to use the "there can't be global warming, we just had 15" of snow" argument.

There is more than one person ignorant enough to use this argument?!  >_< I was hoping I was the only one with a ' friend ' that says such things. >_<!!!

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by freedomfrom:

I also say this to the extent that I know a number of scientist-types, whom I otherwise respect, who think there is no such thing as man-made climate change.

"Scientist types"?  Or actual scientists?  

I know scientists too - I work with a brilliant one who can design a small signal communication system that knocks the socks off our competitors - but I'll trust his analysis of global climate systems as much as I trust my dentists'. 

  The person that I know that uses that arguement make the claim of being a scientist too. They work as a lab tech that mixes chemicals for pills and such. That makes them an expert in this regard! -scoffs- It's actually quite unnerving since they can't even acknowledge the melting ice caps. They have no regard to the penguins or polar bears when mentioned either. Even if you were to make a general comment linking it to human activity.. .OOOH Nu. It's not due to HUMAN activity it's perfectly natural! It isn't even valid information to mention such things.They make the claim of a scientist as their field work.They suggest this is all hype about global warming. It is part of a Hoexs. That PhD research projects were paid for by ' people ' in a deliberate attempt to dupe us. That it's an attempt to deceive or trick us as a audience into believing it! In attempt to get us to accept someting as real/fact when it's only hype to control us.
 It's a conspiracy to suggest that human behavior/activities are causing harm to the environment. Harm that in result can cause something of catastrophic proportion. It's perfectly natural and we haven't been keeping record long enough .... to know otherwise in their view.

 I don't understand why it's even a debate. It seems fair to say that our activities aren't good for the environment. Period. In addition our levels of activies are only increasing. Be realistic. The distress on the polar bears and penguins in itself speaks volumes. The caps melting to such a degree is enough reason to attempt healthier alternatives for the environment.

We contribute to the problem a great deal. It just seems like a lot of drama/excuses stopping us from forming better alternatives.

Original Post by enchantingimage:

 "I don't understand why it's even a debate. It seems fair to say that our activities aren't good for the environment. Period. In addition our levels of activies are only increasing. Be realistic."

"It just seems like a lot of drama/excuses stopping us from forming better alternatives."

 E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!

like the fact that there are certain days of the year in los angeles when parents are told that its not a good idea to have their children play outside. ever since i've moved from los angeles i've only had 2 asthma episodes in the last 12 years.

It seems fair to say that our activities aren't good for the environment. Period. In addition our levels of activies are only increasing. Be realistic. {snip}The caps melting to such a degree is enough reason to attempt healthier alternatives for the environment.

This is what I was getting at. The great majority of people can agree to this and it is a good starting point for the next questions:

How much harm are we as a society willing to risk causing to the environment?

What concessions are we as a society willing to make to lessen the risk of causing harm?

 The denialists that aren't in the direct pay of the oil companies are mostly part of the political right wing of the Republican party who couch their arguments against doing anything about global warming in terms of not caving in to anti-market politics.

 They're acting as if the climate science is a political attack on the free market and dismiss anything outside their frame of reference as irrelevant - witness Ig here as a milder and saner version of it. When it moves from the relatively sane position of Ig to the Heritage foundations' one which is utterly divorced from reality, I just can't find it in me to even attempt to meet them in their frame of reference because their ideological frame of reference is utterly divorced from the physical world.

 Gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the physics of solar fusion and radiation, the physical characteristics of carbon that block infrared ratiation in specific wavelengths - these are not ideological differences of opinion and attempting to cater to market fundamentalists in the Republican party who treats them as if they were optional to reality serves no-one.

 You think it's an accident that the NOAA didn't get this published until after Bush left office?

Original Post by octo-luv:

Original Post by enchantingimage:

 "I don't understand why it's even a debate. It seems fair to say that our activities aren't good for the environment. Period. In addition our levels of activies are only increasing. Be realistic."

"It just seems like a lot of drama/excuses stopping us from forming better alternatives."

 E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!

like the fact that there are certain days of the year in los angeles when parents are told that its not a good idea to have their children play outside. ever since i've moved from los angeles i've only had 2 asthma episodes in the last 12 years.

 Yeah. Plus. Despite the high temperatures, Southern Californian's are told to stay out of the sun at certain times during the day. Due to the harmful rays while the sun is at it's peaks. It's just a safer alternative so they give guidelines for the good of everyone. It's like during midday hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., take steps to reduce sun exposer due to harmful rays. I wasn't aware even though my dad's was born there.My husband is from Cali also so we visit every chance we get in the summer now. I was lounging out by the pool ..Luckily, my husbands Nana came out there to inform me. I didn't even realize it, but I was already darkly tanned. I'd never tanned a day in my life until spending time in Cali. I had smothered on SPF 50 before going out because I'd thought I only burn. I'd only ever been burnt red as a beet.. I actually have very fair skin, but tanned in a matter of about a half hour out there wearing SPF 50!!!! People thought I was from California showing around my husband. ( Due to the beach girl tan. Lol )

It's not a conspiracy to keep people inside it's based on a realistic outlook. People should just embrace better alternatives. It's in everyones best interest to listen when informed of negative consquences. I can't imagine what would've happened to me if I hadn't been wearing SPF 50 that day. I've used the same sunscreen on very sunny days elsewhere and NEVER tanned. Only burnt after the lotion wore off,ect  The pink/red tint that isn't very flattering!

I've been told that it's a different type of sun, but never actually believed it. Till then. It's a totally different experiance there. I tan in a natural way everytime we visit wearing sunblock. That's something I can't do in Oklahoma whatsoever. In Oklahoma it's a horrible kind of heat that doesn't compare.

Original Post by ignayshus:

It seems fair to say that our activities aren't good for the environment. Period. In addition our levels of activies are only increasing. Be realistic. {snip}The caps melting to such a degree is enough reason to attempt healthier alternatives for the environment.

This is what I was getting at. The great majority of people can agree to this and it is a good starting point for the next questions:

How much harm are we as a society willing to risk causing to the environment?

What concessions are we as a society willing to make to lessen the risk of causing harm?

  People just aren't taking the matter into consideration in a logical way. There are things everyone can do to help. Even if we can't reverse what's been done already we could still encourage better alternatives overall. The way we go about things is completely outdated. It would stimulate the economy by forming new jobs. I think we should show the world that we're on a united front to do what's best for the earth. Our earth. (The truth of the matter is America is supposed to be a leading country... and we aren't leading in this regard. imho. )

On a side note it's not in our best interest to continue to dish out money to foreign countries... when we could be building our own means to provide for ourselves in a more efficient way.