Global warming threatens life on earth as we know it...in 1922

ballz2wallz · 08-14-2007, 11:13 AM

They always said history repeats itself. Apparently so does the weather, and the people that react to it.

The same threats apparently threatened us just a century ago, when the world was warming and the climates were changing. If the age of industrialization had emerged, surely it would have been blamed on humans by then? Maybe they were blaming human and livestock farts at that time, as I know they had those around.

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Sound familiar?

Also, it seems others around the world are beginning to abandon their beliefs in global warming:

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Well said Marcus!!

Linzyhop · 08-14-2007, 11:53 AM

um. couldn't this be due to general warming and cooling of the planet as it normally happens over hundreds of years? hence the mini ice age in northern Europe during the middle ages????

ballz2wallz · 08-14-2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um. couldn't this be due to general warming and cooling of the planet as it normally happens over hundreds of years? hence the mini ice age in northern Europe during the middle ages????

One would think!!!!

But no, these days it's due to humans. Humans are to blame. Ask the Goracle.

Linzyhop · 08-14-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

One would think!!!!

But no, these days it's due to humans. Humans are to blame. Ask the Goracle.

well i wouldn't think that humans are helping it.. maybe they're speeding up the process a bit more than it would occur in a natural way, but i'm not a geologist, so i'm not qualified to say either way.

David Octavius · 08-14-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

One would think!!!!

But no, these days it's due to humans. Humans are to blame. Ask the Goracle.

Regardless of your anecdotes, the evidence for GW far outweighs anything to the contrary. And that not even to say I believe in it 100%, but cutting down pollution and being cleaner is not a bad thing, it will probably cut down on all the asthma and cancers so many people are getting proportionally higher around polluted areas.

Could it be cyclical? Sure, human history has gone through it before and its caused major changes, but could this cycle be EXAGGERATED by our pollution? If so then yes, humans are major cause of the current climate trend and possibly making it worse. Certainly our pollution causes humans to be sick, I don't think it much of a stretch for a reasonable person to think it could affect the ecosystem.

WickedLou9 · 08-14-2007, 12:53 PM

The two events are not connected. You are just rehashing the same illogical arguement that every climate change skeptic loves to use. Oh well at one point we thought the earth was flat.. we were wrong about that. So it must logically follow that we are wrong about global warming now... It's an assertion completely devoid of all logic.

I also can't really find any info to back up the statement that anyone is suddenly abandoning global warming related policies in Europe. THat seems to be false.

The only referenace I can find to Benny Peiser is in this article itself, and it seems that Benny Peiseris a social anthropologist. He doesn't say anything about global warming other than that he doesn't think we should buy into the alarmist mentality. He doesn't deny that warming is happening at all. Frankly he's not an expert in that area. He studies societies and how they react to disasters.

Another interesting piece
Benny Peiser - SourceWatch

Peiser makes invalid claims on climate change scientific consensus

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself. [1][2][3]
[edit]
Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"

Peiser claims to be a climate change "skeptic," but on October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." [4]

ballz2wallz · 08-14-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The two events are not connected. You are just rehashing the same illogical arguement that every climate change skeptic loves to use. Oh well at one point we thought the earth was flat.. we were wrong about that. So it must logically follow that we are wrong about global warming now... It's an assertion completely devoid of all logic.

I also can't really find any info to back up the statement that anyone is suddenly abandoning global warming related policies in Europe. THat seems to be false.

The only referenace I can find to Benny Peiser is in this article itself, and it seems that Benny Peiseris a social anthropologist. He doesn't say anything about global warming other than that he doesn't think we should buy into the alarmist mentality. He doesn't deny that warming is happening at all. Frankly he's not an expert in that area. He studies societies and how they react to disasters.

Another interesting piece
Benny Peiser - SourceWatch

No, I'm rehashing the argument that climate change is cyclical, and not caused primarily by humans.

WickedLou9 · 08-14-2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, I'm rehashing the argument that climate change is cyclical, and not caused primarily by humans.

There is no data to support your opinion. It's purely speculative based on anecdotal evidance. You do realize this right? You are standing on opinion in the face of mountains of studies and data to the contrary... It's an irrational position to be clinging to.

Linzyhop · 08-14-2007, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is no data to support your opinion. It's purely speculative based on anecdotal evidance. You do realize this right? You are standing on opinion in the face of mountains of studies and data to the contrary... It's an irrational position to be clinging to.

um, it's proven that there is climate change. the planet shows consistent evidence that it goes back and forth between being hotter and colder.

the global warming argument is whether or not humans have brought upon change faster than what normally would have happened.

WickedLou9 · 08-14-2007, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um, it's proven that there is climate change. the planet shows consistent evidence that it goes back and forth between being hotter and colder.

the global warming argument is whether or not humans have brought upon change faster than what normally would have happened.

Right...and the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous that it is. Out of 928 published studies 1 denied the correlation and that one was not peer reviewed and was funded by the oil industry. Why anyone would disagree with this is beyond me.

Linzyhop · 08-14-2007, 03:56 PM

i have no idea what we're arguing right now.

David Octavius · 08-15-2007, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

the global warming argument is whether or not humans have brought upon change faster than what normally would have happened.

Exactly...if it's faster AND worse.

I'm not a scientist studying this field so my conjectures are just that, guesses of the relation between us and Global Warming. However, I think there is strong evidence to support the view that we are hurting our ecosystem in so many ways anyway that cutting down on pollution and finding alternatives is really just a sensible thing to do and ought to be done.

Linzyhop · 08-15-2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Exactly...if it's faster AND worse.

I'm not a scientist studying this field so my conjectures are just that, guesses of the relation between us and Global Warming. However, I think there is strong evidence to support the view that we are hurting our ecosystem in so many ways anyway that cutting down on pollution and finding alternatives is really just a sensible thing to do and ought to be done.

cutting down pollution (because it's pollution) and recycling and being environmental friendly is something we should all do, but global warming existing to the extent that is being claimed is a bit much for me to swallow.

thatguyoverthere · 08-15-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Exactly...if it's faster AND worse.

I'm not a scientist studying this field so my conjectures are just that, guesses of the relation between us and Global Warming.

But, among the scientists who do study this field, an overwhelming number think that human activity is contributing to the current warming of the climate. Does that affect your opinion at all?

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

cutting down pollution (because it's pollution) and recycling and being environmental friendly is something we should all do, but global warming existing to the extent that is being claimed is a bit much for me to swallow.

What do you think is "the extent that is being claimed", and why is it hard to swallow?

David Octavius · 08-15-2007, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

But, among the scientists who do study this field, an overwhelming number think that human activity is contributing to the current warming of the climate. Does that affect your opinion at all?

Sure it would, greatly, I would assume of course that their sampling is sound and they understand the greater issue of general climate change regardless of human activity and moreover, that they haven't succumb to "group think" that seems to infect a lot of movements.

If the above is true than yea their reasoning is very sound and should be taken very seriously save for the fringe groups who predict doom and gloom without a shred of credible evidence.

In the end, regardless of the extent of global warming, pollution is a serious problem and affects us all, only the truly warped will disagree with that, so either way, something needs to be done.

Linzyhop · 08-16-2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

What do you think is "the extent that is being claimed", and why is it hard to swallow?

a lot of global warming enthusiasts are saying that global warming is strictly the fault of humans and that the planet's climate should not be changing. Gore has gone off the deep end about how horrible everyone is and although I agree everyone can do more to conserve resources and cut down on pollution, I don't think our contribution to the change of climate is as large as say Gore (and hollywood) is making it.

It's a general feeling I have, and no, i'm not a scientist and my mind is not "made up" and immovable, but right now I think the human race is getting too much blame for something that occurs naturally on our planet.

thatguyoverthere · 08-16-2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

a lot of global warming enthusiasts are saying that global warming is strictly the fault of humans and that the planet's climate should not be changing.

Where has anyone said that the current warming of the climate is "strictly" the fault of humans? Where has anyone said that the planet's climate "should not be changing?" I think that's a mischaracterization of their position.

Certainly everyone understands that there are natural factors that affect the climate, and that the climate is always in a state of change. I've never seen any global warming enthusiasts put it the way you're claiming they put it.

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

Gore has gone off the deep end about how horrible everyone is and although I agree everyone can do more to conserve resources and cut down on pollution, I don't think our contribution to the change of climate is as large as say Gore (and hollywood) is making it.

Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth?" What statements has he made that you think constitute going off the deep end? I don't think Gore calls everyone horrible. At the end of the film he offers positive steps to take and an optimistic assessment of the entire situation.

And, I'm very interested in why you would choose to limit the opinions about the size of our contribution to the change of climate to simply "Gore and Hollywood." Don't the opinions of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations on the subject carry any weight for you? Heck, I would even go so far as to argue that their opinions on such a difficult scientific question as this one would actually be more important than the opinions of Gore and Hollywood.

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

It's a general feeling I have, and no, i'm not a scientist and my mind is not "made up" and immovable, but right now I think the human race is getting too much blame for something that occurs naturally on our planet.

I'm glad you have an open mind.

How much blame is a genuinely debateable question. What will eventually happen and to what extent is also inconclusive. I've never argued otherwise.

But, in the minds of a majority of climate scientists and scientific, academic, and corporate organizations both public and private here in the United States and around the world, there simply is no question that human activity is contributing to the current warming of the climate.

thatguyoverthere · 08-16-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Sure it would, greatly, I would assume of course that their sampling is sound and they understand the greater issue of general climate change regardless of human activity and moreover, that they haven't succumb to "group think" that seems to infect a lot of movements.

If the above is true than yea their reasoning is very sound and should be taken very seriously save for the fringe groups who predict doom and gloom without a shred of credible evidence.

I would be very curious as to your opinion about the information I provided in this following thread:

Climate Change and Human Activity

I did my own independent research, and attempted to bias it against environmental advocacy groups and green technologies.

I found only one organization that aligned themselves with the belief that human