Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[babe]

Who are these evolutionists? I know many who say belief in God is unneeded and we have better explanations, but I'm not aware of any who say (generic) God's existence has been proven impossible, unless you mean some specific notion of God.

With just a few minutes of time I could provide you a substantial list of politically-hinged folks who triumphantly declare evolution proves there is no God, just as well as I could provide a lot of religious people who will claim evolution is bunk and God made everything in a few days.

But there are some more careful thinkers out there on both sides, as well. Glad to see you're in that group.

 

[♪alt13]

Well, hey hey, when you insert your responses inside my "quote", even though you bold them so we can tell who said what, almost, the problem is all I can quote is the part outside my quote. . . .
I Will avoid it in the future
so, in broad terms, I don't think global warming has any chance of destroying our planet or the human race, or even substantially changing our way of life, as long as we just individually cope with it as we see fit, personally. On the other hand, permitting government agencies to do what they claim they need to do, will change the quality of life. Unmitigatibly for the worse.

I think the cause, while the global warming we may have measured since the huge reliance on combustion for energy began in spades with the internal combustion engine coming online, along with the availability of oil and natural gas is the expected result we could predict from the outset, is a political convenience. Like I said, if it were an advancing ice age as was the prediction in the 1970s, it would serve just as well as an excuse to give a special class of managers all the power in the world.

I think we are going into an ice age, and I think our little carbon dioxide blanket might reduce or delay it a very little bit, but if as I suspect, warm oceans are the necessary condition to set an ice age into motion, it could very well make our next ice age a little worse.

My general sentiment is that people will always solve their own problems somehow, and usually can do so better without totalitarian governments. Neither global warming nor an ice age is a threat to life on earth.

I don't think you are crazy for fearing excessive power and totalitarian rule, I'm right there with you.

1)The governments of the world have granted ownership of nonrenewable resources to the few. They have spent billions of dollars that they have gotten from the people on infrastructure to support the use of those resources. The average citizen is highly dependent on an energy system that they have little to no control over and that makes them vulnerable. It is largely the government that makes oil so much more competitive in the market over renewables.

2)I won't pretend to know exactly what the implications of the human caused portion greenhouse effect will be. I do know that disruptions in the carbon cycle have caused amazingly calamitous events in our planets past. We can make some reasonable projections at what might be at stake. Examples Florida, Venice, The Netherlands. Now taking just those three examples,(there would be many under an ice age theory as well) We are expecting future generations to build massive sea walls using an energy source that has not been invented yet. Oil if we keep using it like we are today will not be available to them as an energy source when these projects become necessary. I think this point is maybe more important than climate change from a moral perspective.
How can we use such a valuable natural resource at such an irresponsible rate? It reminds me of the history of the Plains Bison.

3)Our planet is a system. I like you do not want liberty impeded by a group of elitist people managers. Unlike you(I think) I do want people managing asteroids and coming up with contingency plans. I do want endangered species protected(though admittedly this can get out of hand at times). I do want to see the biosphere managed to make sure that it stays optimal(perhaps even more optimal) for human habitation. I do not think our current government would have to expand to get these done. We would only have to repurpose it. (by the way Liberals^that is "general welfare" as in "...to promote the general welfare". A lot of the crap you try to claim as "general welfare" drives me bonkers)

 

[babe]

It's also been without humans before, for billions of years.



For someone who rants about others making too much of facts, it's surprising how easily you swallow media-induced fictions.

https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s/



You fear a myth over a reality. That's very human.

I was there, bro.

You're clearly losing your bearings if you think I've "easily swallowed media-induced fictions". It's people like you and your so-called authoritative sources that justify my concerns for political causes which are more devoted to their objectives than to understanding anything.

 

[babe]

So here's an entry-level link that makes for some interesting reading. . . .

https://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

The geologic record supports the view that most of the period 600 Million years before present to 20 Million years before present had climates about 15 degrees F warmer than today, and in that view, the past 3 Million years has been an "ice age".

Yes, we are in an ice age even now, though we are in an interglacial reprieve at the moment. The observations I mentioned above about "ice ages" being preceded by a brief spike in temps was valid over the past 450,000 years, placing that observation within the context of the broader "ice age" that has generally prevailed in the past 3 Million years.

Some of the extended predictions in the seventies had us all moving south in front of an advancing ice sheet. The geologic record indicates this can happen very rapidly. . . . though the ending of a period of glaciation is usually even faster. A lot of reasons have been advanced to explain why these climate changes can be so quick to come on. . ..

rotation within the galaxy bringing our solar system into substantially different environments in terms of gases, dusts, radiation streams. . . . . solar cycles. . . . changes in the earth's orbit, magnetic field, rotation/inclination. . . . asteroids, volcanism. . . .plate tectonics changing ocean currents. . . .

all puts us humans on a less impressive scale.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is crazy talk. The earth itself, the sun, and the galaxy/universe obviously all have a very minimal impact, if any, compared to what humans are capable of doing.

 

[babe]

That is crazy talk. The earth itself, the sun, and the galaxy/universe obviously all have a very minimal impact, if any, compared to what humans are capable of doing.

obviously, you've never compared the snow-melting effects of sunlight and a campfire, even on a cold winter day. Arguably, you can cook your toes if you stick them in the fire, but the fire lacks the scope of action the sun has, and even from 90 million miles away, the tiny fraction of radiation absorbed by the Earth includes the power to etch into your snowbank even while a bunch of Aussies are sitting in the shade sippin' their lemonade. . . .

The sunspot cycle has a natural high and low point in radiance. We are supposed to be in one of those high points about now, but scientists have been observing this as one of the weaker "highs" for the past year or two. You're about to feel the effect of a little less heat from the sun, when some colder than average arctic air sinks into the Reno area. . . .

I understand what one idiot camper can do to the Reno summer, but seriously.. . . he had help. Without the sun's energy to power the whole photosynthesis program of life on earth, they would not have been a forest fire last summer. . . . and the air would have already had a lot of carbon dioxide in it, more than man can ever put back with our puny efforts at combustion.

 

[One Brow]

With just a few minutes of time I could provide you a substantial list of politically-hinged folks who triumphantly declare evolution proves there is no God, just as well as I could provide a lot of religious people who will claim evolution is bunk and God made everything in a few days.

But there are some more careful thinkers out there on both sides, as well. Glad to see you're in that group.

I assumed by "evolutionists" you meant professional biologists. organizations thereof, or perhaps people with some sort of significant influence. If you just mean a few windbags with blogs, then I'm sure you can find some of those supporting any sort of claim you care to mention.

 

[One Brow]

I was there, bro.

I was there, also. I remember the headlines in magazines. As the link explains, there's no comparison in terms of scientific consensus or certainty. There certainly were no legislative agendas to prevent a cooling earth, no equivalent of the Kyoto accords, etc.

 

[One Brow]

So here's an entry-level link that makes for some interesting reading. . . .

https://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

That doesn't show up on the first graph, probably because of the scale. We're *way* above the last trough, back on the warmer side of the graph.

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

Figure 3 examines the climate response to various CO2 emission scenarios. The green line is the natural response without CO2 emissions. Blue represents an anthropogenic release of 300 gigatonnes of carbon - we have already passed this mark. Release of 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (orange line) would prevent an ice age for 130,000 years. If anthropogenic carbon release were 5000 gigatonnes or more, glaciation will be avoided for at least half a million years. As things stand now, the combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is likely to generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years.

 

[cowhide]

Yes, they can measure how much ice melts, the volume of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, the rise of the global temperature. But what does this mean? These numbers could get larger and have no effect on my life, or they could lead to world-ending disaster. The long-term effects cannot be seen, while the long-term effects of government policy can be seen.

What long term effects would neo-con policies have on the future? Seems to be as unmeasurable as progressive unless you look at the past as a way to determine the future? Both sides have had some policies that have have had long term effects on our current state.

 

[cowhide]

Expecting corporations to do the right thing when no profit is involved is definitely the way to have major issues with the environment and economy. Corporations are driven by profit and thus have a conflict of interest on when it comes to doing the right thing. Now there are some corporations who try and are concerned about the earth and economy but on a larger scale most corporations are married to their stockholders.