Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[CoccoBill]

My suggestion is troll better. You went from a complete skeptic to "so what" in like 3 posts. Try to be more consistent.

[BananaStand]

My suggestion is troll better. You went from a complete skeptic to "so what" in like 3 posts. Try to be more consistent.

I'm quite sure my position remains unchanged.

I am not at all skeptical that the earth is warming, and do not deny the impacts to species, coastlines, and whatever.

My answer to that is "so what?"

I'm skeptical when it comes to claims that the actions of a single government could reverse those phenomena. My skepticism stems from the fact that temperature changes, melting glaciers, extincting species, and changing coastlines have been occurring since the earth was formed. It seems somewhat dubious that we can reverse all of that if we just made cars that get better gas mileage.

[BankItDrew]

I'm quite sure my position remains unchanged.

I am not at all skeptical that the earth is warming, and do not deny the impacts to species, coastlines, and whatever.

My answer to that is "so what?"

I'm skeptical when it comes to claims that the actions of a single government could reverse those phenomena. My skepticism stems from the fact that temperature changes, melting glaciers, extincting species, and changing coastlines have been occurring since the earth was formed. It seems somewhat dubious that we can reverse all of that if we just made cars that get better gas mileage.

How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made? Or do you subscribe to the idea that the earth is going through another change, just like last time, before humans. This is really at the heart of your argument. Where is the breakeven point for you?

Side note: if someone thinks that the actions of a single government will solve our environmental problems - they are stupid and need to learn geography.

[a500lbgorilla]

How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made?

It's hard but it can be done. It requires that you engage with the science itself and not all of the nonsense that flurries around it.

You each could start here: http://berkeleyearth.org/

Way back when emails where the smoking gun for the climate hoax, this guy, a noted climate skeptic, was putting all available data through the ringer. When he had finished a couple years later, he declared that not only is the globe warming but man's industrial activity is far and away the prime mover behind it. Though the warming effect itself has so far been moderate.

[BananaStand]

How does one prove to you, or myself, that the climate warming changes are man-made? Or do you subscribe to the idea that the earth is going through another change, just like last time, before humans. This is really at the heart of your argument. Where is the breakeven point for you?

I don't really think it matters where the break even point is.

I went hiking recently and saw a 25 foot deep basin carved into rock. 25 feet deep, and just as wide. Think about how much ice had to melt and run off to create a hole that big, in solid rock. All that ice melted 14,000 years ago before man ever even thought of fossil fuels.

So it seems plausible to me that changes in the earth's temperature could simply be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Proving whether the changes are man-made or natural, or determining my own personal 'break even point' seems moot. My only point here is that if it can't be definitively proven one way or another, then it's not really something a government should be embracing as policy.

Assume that the climate changes ARE man-made. What are you going to do about it? As I said earlier, even if all the best case scenarios come true from the Obama era environmental regulations, then US carbon emissions will only drop by about 1%. The planet will not notice!! You can double a car's fuel efficiency, but if the number of drivers triples....that's a net loss for the planet

Pandora's box is open when it comes to fossil fuels. Trying to close it would be a pointless and wasteful exercise of government. You'll never slow down industry, commuting, and consumption enough to reverse climate change. And you'll certainly never do so acting unilaterally as a single government.

Assuming for a minute that it's provable and true that the Earth would be perfectly fine in perpetuity but for the interference man, then the only measures that mankind could realistically take, at this point, that would have an impact are profoundly drastic measures. I mean, we need to kick about 4 billion people off of this planet to make the system work again.

My argument isn't really about whether or not climate change is real or not. It's not really about whether or not it's caused by man. It's about whether or not addressing it is a practical application of government.

[a500lbgorilla]

Proving whether the changes are man-made or natural, or determining my own personal 'break even point' seems moot. My only point here is that if it can't be definitively proven one way or another, then it's not really something a government should be embracing as policy.

Why not? Gov't is uniquely able to address it, why throw that away?

Also, climate change can be definitely proven. The greenhouse effect isn't even less intuitive than electricity.

[a500lbgorilla]

Assume that the climate changes ARE man-made. What are you going to do about it? As I said earlier, even if all the best case scenarios come true from the Obama era environmental regulations, then US carbon emissions will only drop by about 1%. The planet will not notice!! You can double a car's fuel efficiency, but if the number of drivers triples....that's a net loss for the planet

This is one of the problems with the EPA. Everyone has to buy better cars and everyone has to pass inspection, but that enormous industrial plant that dumps waste into a nearby stream seems to continue on in its practice entirely unmolested.

My argument isn't really about whether or not climate change is real or not. It's not really about whether or not it's caused by man. It's about whether or not addressing it is a practical application of government.

So you agree that climate change is real and man-made? Because if you don't, it just seems like you'll fall back to those arguments if someone points out that governments are uniquely positioned to address a world-wide problem, as they have the ability to dictate many actions to those they govern.

[a500lbgorilla]

Assuming for a minute that it's provable and true that the Earth would be perfectly fine in perpetuity but for the interference man

How come there's oxygen in the air?

Lil' bacteria made it. They made so much of it that iron was seeded from the ocean and fell to the floor as rust, then so much more that the atmosphere became saturated with it.

Lil' bacteria.

Man could never do something like that.

, then the only measures that mankind could realistically take, at this point, that would have an impact are profoundly drastic measures. I mean, we need to kick about 4 billion people off of this planet to make the system work again.

Don't think too far. You're tripping over yourself.