Ron Paul Slashes Newt Gingrich

[Napolean]

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.

What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for humans to effect climate, if Earth's inhabitants couldn't effect climate, we wouldn't be here today.

My point is when you compare the effects of common events, such as volcanic eruptions and solar cycles, those have much greater effects than we are capable of doing. A single volcanic eruption can cool the global temperature within days.

I haven't read too much about man made climate change, it's not like its easy to find credible sources you can actually believe. When you have scientists emailing each other on how they can curve fit figures to prove their points. When what was supposed to be the biggest ecological disaster in history, disappearing on its own in the gulf of mexico. When you can still walk about in chile without sunscreen and not get fried like an ant. It makes it all the more harder to buy into the whole man made climate change thing.

Don't get me started on all the money behind it either. The only people I see who buy into all the energy efficient light bulbs, low flow toilets, etc. Are people who don't stop and think how having to flush 6 times instead of once saves energy, or how its better for the environment to have light bulbs that are full of toxic chemicals, that even have an eerie green glow when they are turned off. Electric cars are nice too, because nobody stops to think "Hey, I wonder how electricity gets to my house." They just think that its actually a *different* kind of energy flowing from their house to the outlet, to their car. It's not a bunch of giant power plants burning fuels to generate energy, its magic!

 

[Andrey]

I suck at arguing so just listen to Guerilla's words of reason.

Also think about who is making really big bucks from all this "climate change". Hint: carbon tax.

 

[Moxie]

Don't get me started on all the money behind it either. The only people I see who buy into all the energy efficient light bulbs, low flow toilets, etc. Are people who don't stop and think how having to flush 6 times instead of once saves energy, or how its better for the environment to have light bulbs that are full of toxic chemicals, that even have an eerie green glow when they are turned off. Electric cars are nice too, because nobody stops to think "Hey, I wonder how electricity gets to my house." They just think that its actually a *different* kind of energy flowing from their house to the outlet, to their car. It's not a bunch of giant power plants burning fuels to generate energy, its magic!

I'm not in favor of governments forcing people to use certain types of toilets or whatever, but I'll point out that most flushing is done for urine. A lot of newer toilets have two flushing modes. One for the pee, and one for the poo, but it wouldn't surprise me if you still have to flush multiple times to get rid of the big turds.

CFL bulbs can be recycled, but even if they all end up in the landfill, the mercury going into the environment is still less than with the older bulbs. This is due to the older ones using a lot more electricity, half of which is from coal power, in the US at least.

Electric cars still cause pollution, but it is much less than with using just fuel.

Electric Cars--How Much Does It Cost per Charge?: Scientific American

 

[Napolean]

Woohoo. A fun can of worms. I don't feel too strongly about Global Warming either way, but I feel that if you're going to take a position on it, it should be with the Scientists. The vast, vast majority of them agree. The closer their specialty is to energy or the environment, the more likely they are to agree.

Here's the ugly truth(easily illustrated in the posts I quoted): Whether or not climate change is happening, most people who don't "believe" in climate change don't do so not because of any actual evidence, but because it interferes with other deeply held positions. They are inherently biased and no evidence on the planet is going to convince them..because their objection isn't really even about whether or not climate change is happening. They are the logical equivalent of "new earth creationists".

These people - in my opinion - are unimaginative twats. They perceive the only "solutions" to global warming as things run contrary to lower level political beliefs - property rights, "drill drill drill", sovereignty, big government, etc. So as a result, they reflexively reject it without support. You only have to look as far as the political demographics(ones that I agree with for many issues) that are most adamantly against climate change to see this reality clear as day.

So my advice: Stop with the ignorant and fucktarded anti-intellectualism and find a solution that doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Even if scientists aren't perfect, they're a hell of a lot more accurate than the politicians and think tanks that lead the anti-climate change debate. It's fucking ridiculous.

Stop subsidizing oil entirely. Prices will go up. This creates a market incentive for a non-oil solution, which funnels money into "green" energy without a single extra tax or regulation. The higher prices go, the higher the the potential profit is and the higher the incentive to develop is. As development occurs technology gets better, eventually becoming more efficient than our current sources of power. Magic, amirite?

My opinions on climate change have nothing to do with politics. I'm simply skeptical about climate change due to the people who are screaming the loudest about it. It seems like it's always the same crowd hyping up the next big disaster looming, that we're always bringing on ourselves.

And as I said before, the big money behind it, and the shady practices from people trying to prove it exists, raise big red flags for me.

I wouldn't outright say it's impossible, I'm just confident that natural occurring events dwarf any kind of effects we would be creating. Also, everything I've read and watched points out that Earth recovers very quickly from anything we do. If we invented a new form of energy that didn't involve creating gases, or just stopped all industrial activity altogether, any damage at all done, would probably be completely undone within weeks or months.

I can't remember the name of the documentary, but it was about Pluto.It talked about how as Pluto gets closer to the sun, it actually develops its atmosphere. When it's further away, its nearly non-existent. As it gets closer though, it gets more complex with clouds and winds.

If we can actually observe an atmosphere come and go, and come back, on another planet. Why would we think that our atmosphere could be destroyed? Or at the very least, why do we assume it could be damaged permanently?

 

[mackspeed]

new member, interesting discussions on this site!

 

[kingfish]

Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

​

How'd that 3rd grader get a Ph.D. in physics?

 

[ly2 from WF]

new member, interesting discussions on this site!

go fuck your mother

 

[lukep]

My opinions on climate change have nothing to do with politics. I'm simply skeptical about climate change due to the people who are screaming the loudest about it.

You mean the politicians? LOL!

It seems like it's always the same crowd hyping up the next big disaster looming, that we're always bringing on ourselves.

Of course it does. Because they make money that way, plain and simple.

And as I said before, the big money behind it, and the shady practices from people trying to prove it exists, raise big red flags for me.

They should for anyone, but that doesn't mean global warming isn't manmade. It just means some assholes found a way to profit off of the accompanying fear, as usual.

I can't remember the name of the documentary, but it was about Pluto.It talked about how as Pluto gets closer to the sun, it actually develops its atmosphere. When it's further away, its nearly non-existent. As it gets closer though, it gets more complex with clouds and winds.

If we can actually observe an atmosphere come and go, and come back, on another planet. Why would we think that our atmosphere could be destroyed? Or at the very least, why do we assume it could be damaged permanently?

Pluto is lifeless. We are life. Life is delicate.

Anyone who ever ran a saltwater fishtank can tell you that even the tinyest imbalances can wipe all Life off the planet... Even the cockroaches.

Sure, the planet will be just fine... But YOU wont!