Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming

It sure is getting warmer early this year.

Dechipher wrote: So I can't just blithely disregard something because it's not what I believe.

Since I am intelligent, I am able to blithely disregard things that have no basis in reality.

I get what you're saying, Phattonez, but honestly, the only truly relevant data in that graph was the sunspot activity. There has been no sudden rise in sunspot activity in recent decades, which means that there has been no sudden rise in solar activity (it's involved, and I don't really want to get into it, but basically, yeah, sunspot activity is used as a measure of overall solar activity). And in fact, from the period of roughly 1980 to 2000, sunspot activity has decreased.

From this, we cannot conclude that global warming is man-made, by any means. However, if we accept the premise that over recent decades, global temperatures have been rising, we can safely conclude that it is not the result of solar activity. And this folks, this is how science works. You work through process of elimination. In this case, you note that temperatures have been rising, and you work out a list of possible causes. Then you examine the evidence, and through process of elimination, slowly work your way to the most probable cause.

My stance is neutral on global warming, but I do not think it's as bad as those on the polarized "we're doomed" side think. Here's my deal. (I'm not looking up sources to back up anything as it's tough to find objective reports and I'm not spending an hour on this thread. Anything marked with a * is something I feel like I read from a reputable source but if you can cite something that refutes it then have at it, but realize I'm not presenting anything as a rock-solid point here.)

First, there's no reason we shouldn't be taking measures to reduce the amount of pollution we're generating and practice energy conservation. Whether or not we can prove we're affecting the planet in a negative way, making our air and water dirtier while removing important parts of the ecosystem such as the rainforests is obviously a bad idea. When I don't have to dramatically change my lifestyle to do something green, I do it. I'm using CF bulbs (and thus introducing harmful chemicals into landfills while using less electricity), I try to use stores clustered together to reduce the amount of time I spend driving, I don't drive a giant semi truck disguised as a family vehicle, etc. Still, I refuse to set my thermostat to something uncomfortable, and I'm going to take a deep, hot bath every night.

As to whether we're deep in a hole and the ice caps are going to melt and we're all doomed, I'm not so sure. We have evidence that the planet goes through cycles of climate change: there's been an ice age and supposedly temperate periods in the past were quite warmer than we're used to*. We've observed climate change over maybe 200 years*, but honestly we've only been concerned about global warming for 30 years or so* so that's the only detailed data we have. If we assume that young-Earth creationists are right and the Earth is 6,000 or so years old, that means we're making definite predictions with data that only covers either 3% (200 years) or 0.5% (30 years) of the Earth's lifetime. This is the choice that is favorable to global warming science. If we decide that we're not going to ignore tons of geological evidence, we use Wikipedia to age the Earth at 4.54 billion years. This means we're basing our global warming predictions on detailed observations of climate spanning .0000044% (200 years) or 0.00000066% (30 years) of the Earth's history**. That's like trying to figure out what a 70-year-old person has done with their live by observing 14 seconds of their life. To me, it's preposterous to say we have enough data to definitively prove that the Earth's climate change is our fault. If I'm not allowed to believe in a deity based on thousands of years of word-of-mouth evidence, I fail to see why it's just fine for science to believe that a data set with coverage that doesn't even approach a percent of a percent of a percent is a definitive source of reasonable information.

Still, I think it's stupid to carry on as we have for the next few hundred years until we have a significant amount of data gathered. We might be the cause, and it's worth doing anything we can to mitigate the risk. Part of the problem is the planet's climate is so complicated we still don't know what causes all of the patterns we see. So we could be wrong that this or that affects the climate at all.

So, in summary, I think Al Gore and his Gorons are a bunch of cultists following fearless leader all the way to the bookstore and the bank. I'm not under the impression that we're in danger of a severe climate change. But I do think that moderate conservationism is a good goal. If we all do little things we can hopefully stall any problems we're causing until we can at least prove we're the reason why it's happening.

**The correctness of these numbers is somewhat dubious; the results had exponents of -7 and -9; I assumed adding 2 to account for percentage then 1 to move the decimal to a normalized position meant I could put the remaining number of zeroes into the number. I didn't feel like putting any more effort than that into it. Sue me.

Just posting to say I agree with what Atma said.

While science does have a huge consensus going and a pile of data to back up the possibility of human affected global warming trends, the fact much of its only been collected in the past 50 years and average temperature readings only seem to go back a century, I'm skeptical as to whether or not a definitive conclusion could be made.

That all said, I'm also worried that even if this is only part of a natural warming cycle, we might still be affecting the severity of it. Which is why Atma's "moderate conservationism" is a good idea. Actually, its a good idea regardless, but doing so isn't going to affect our way of life dramatically and might in the long run be helpful if scientific data and climate trends continue as they are.

Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.

MottZilla wrote:Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.

MottZilla wrote:Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.

Do you have any evidence that humanity has the ability to change the earth's climate, besides trash in the ocean? That seems rather spurious. In any case, your view is basically what the True Believer ideology comes down to: Scare people into change.

I've said before that I am in favor of conservation. What I am not in favor of is government intervening in every area of our society.

rock_nog wrote:Heh, makes me think of seatbelt laws. I mean, seatbelts should be a no-brainer. And yet, there are people out there whose only motivation to wear one is to avoid getting a ticket. Utterly baffling, how the human mind works sometimes.

That is the difference between a libertarian and someone else. I hate the seatbelt laws, they represent one of the many intrusions of government in our lives. I wear my seatbelt. But if someone else does not wish to do so, they are only harming themselves.

I've got evidence that we can change the planet - look at our nuclear stockpiles. We could, literally, with the press of a button, send this planet back into the ice age.

Anyway, I feel that government has to intervene in conservation, because in that area, what someone else does affects me. Your rights end where mine begin.

Starkist wrote:Do you have any evidence that humanity has the ability to change the earth's climate, besides trash in the ocean?

In this edition of AGN, Starkist increases his capacity for fantasy and pretends that chemistry is a bunch of lies! Because CO2 has been CLEARLY SHOWN to be a greenhouse gas that traps heat energy in our atmosphere. And we produce millions (or billions?) of tons of CO2 every year.

While it is true our nuclear stockpiles could obliterate all man-made infrastructure and most of the species alive today, the Earth itself would be fine. The Earth recovered quite nicely from the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, did it not? Prior to that, it also recovered from the asteroid that created the Moon, did it not?

Is it any coincidence that most of these "climate change" alarmists are atheists who believe in no power greater than themselves? Perhaps that's why they believe we can cause "climate change." I put that in quotation marks because it used to be "global warming" until global temperatures started to trend downward recently. Whatever is happening to the Earth's temperature, we must be causing it somehow, so sayeth the alarmists.

Think of the last time you were in an airplane. If you had a window seat, I'll bet you a Philly cheesesteak you couldn't resist looking out. You probably saw nothing but beautiful blue sky and clouds everywhere. Do you honestly think anything we are capable of could mess that up?

In 1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted. Global temperatures decreased 0.7�F as a result of that one event! We've been pumping CO2 (which is NOT a "pollutant," btw... last I checked we do exhale it) into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and we've only managed to raise global temperature by about 1-1.5�F! (I am of course assuming everything Algore and company are claiming is 100% accurate in that statement.)

He asked if there was evidence that we could alter the climate, not whether we could blow up the Earth. No, of course the Earth will keep going on after we blow ourselves out, that's not the point. The point is that, in the process, we would create a major climate change. How did we leap from talking about climate change to global annihilation?

But what I don't get is, why are we talking about Al Gore? It seems irrelevant to me, when nobody here is being dogmatic about the issue.

Alpha, the fear is not that altering the climate will destroy the earth. The fear is that altering the climate will lead to a billion deaths and the collapse of the economy. The earth will be just fine. Her human stewards, however, could be at risk of polluting themselves out of existence as we know it.

The point I was trying to make was that I don't think humans are capable of changing the climate, for better or for worse (whatever that is supposed to mean anyway). That's all. We must adapt to whatever changes the Earth presents us with.

I brought up the airplane analogy to illustrate that, while cruising only a few miles above the Earth's surface, you often see no evidence we even exist! That's how small of a footprint we've created.

I brought up Mount Pinatubo to illustrate how much change a relatively minor event in Earth's geological history can cause, and how little change 200+ years of human activity can supposedly cause.

Like I said, our nuclear stockpiles are more than adequate for causing a major global climate change. The point still stands.

If our nuclear stockpiles were to suddenly become, uh, exhausted, any climate change that may occur would be the least of our problems. Maybe we can have the cockroaches that would survive the nuclear holocaust brief us on what happened while we were holed up in the nuclear bunker. :tongue:

That's not the point - the point is, we have the technological capability to alter the climate on a global scale.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think using nukes would have any long-term effects on the Earth's climate. We don't exactly have any empirical evidence to either prove or disprove it, so I guess it's something we'll just have to agree to disagree on. And like I said before, should the nuclear holocaust come, we can ask the cockroaches what happened once we emerge from the bunker!

So would I be correct in assuming you believe lots of coal-burning power plants, Boeing 747's and Hummer H2's are capable of altering the climate as well? Also don't forget all the CO2 that's released when all of us exhale! If so, what do you think we should do about it?

I don't believe that - that would be absurd. Based on what? There isn't enough evidence. I will admit there's enough evidence to support the possibility that those things do affect the climate, and as a fan of chaos theory, I must say that a complex, dynamic system such as our global weather system is almost certainly affected by small changes in unpredictable ways.

I'm just trying to logically consider this. I don't really have a side in the whole matter, as I have made clear many, many times before. I think both groups, the believers and the deniers, are either dogmatic nutjobs or manipulative bastards out to exploit the situation. I just want to stick to the science, I don't give a crap about the political implications.

AlphaDawg wrote:I brought up the airplane analogy to illustrate that, while cruising only a few miles above the Earth's surface, you often see no evidence we even exist!

Unless it's at night, when you can clearly see the Earth lit up by human activity from space. (Barring cloud cover, of course.)

Also, just because a chemical is naturally produced by our bodies doesn't mean it's not extremely harmful in large quantities. We fart out methane and sulfides, you gonna say those don't pollute?
I don't know exactly how much CO2 we exhale, but probably not as much as fossil-fuel-burning machines. Most of our breath, inhaling and exhaling, is nitrogen anyway. Also, it would be impossible for us to stop exhaling CO2 no matter how long we tried to weane ourselves off of it. We actually are capable of drastically reducing our artificial CO2 emissions, and it's not like doing so will hurt the environment, so I don't see why not.

Also, to reiterate one point, I don't think anybody except some animist sects of environmetalism really cares about damaging the Earth for Earth's sake. Most environmentalists are environmetalists because they care about what'll happen to people if we "damage" the environment. (I put "damage" in quotes because the very concept of environmental damage is relative to how it affects people and other currently living things. I don't think the Earth itself cares one way or the other, as it's not alive.)

Regardless of whether humans can change the climate doesn't matter. Sometimes you need to tell stupid people shit like that to get them to pick up after themselves. The rest of us can figure things out for ourselves.

All this talk about nuclear weapons messing up the earth long-term is nonsense, I think. I brought up Mt. St. Helens earlier. It was a truly massive volcanic eruption, more powerful than 27,000 nuclear weapons exploding simultaneously. (According to Wikipedia.) It will have been twenty-eight years, next month, and the ecosystem is thriving there again. I've been there, I've seen it!

The earth will survive. It is humanity that must adapt to the earth. The climate has varied throughout earth's history. It is only now that people seem to think that we must hold it static the way it is now.

Here's a peer-reviewed journal article on the possibility of nuclear winter.

http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf

I swear to God, I'm beginning to hate people like Al Gore. I mean, thanks to people like him, we can't just sit down and have a grown-up conversation about global warming, because both sides feel like they have something to prove. This is what happens when you politicize science. I mean, I don't care about the political implications of global warming, but it's impossible to talk about it without people on both sides spazzing out. Either my skepticism is endangering the planet, or my open-mindedness is a threat to our freedom.

Feasul wrote:Unless it's at night, when you can clearly see the Earth lit up by human activity from space. (Barring cloud cover, of course.)

Feasul wrote:Also, just because a chemical is naturally produced by our bodies doesn't mean it's not extremely harmful in large quantities. We fart out methane and sulfides, you gonna say those don't pollute?

Feasul wrote:I don't know exactly how much CO2 we exhale, but probably not as much as fossil-fuel-burning machines. Most of our breath, inhaling and exhaling, is nitrogen anyway. Also, it would be impossible for us to stop exhaling CO2 no matter how long we tried to weane ourselves off of it. We actually are capable of drastically reducing our artificial CO2 emissions, and it's not like doing so will hurt the environment, so I don't see why not.

rock_nog wrote:I swear to God, I'm beginning to hate people like Al Gore. I mean, thanks to people like him, we can't just sit down and have a grown-up conversation about global warming, because both sides feel like they have something to prove. This is what happens when you politicize science. I mean, I don't care about the political implications of global warming, but it's impossible to talk about it without people on both sides spazzing out. Either my skepticism is endangering the planet, or my open-mindedness is a threat to our freedom.

So, if I'm understanding you right, AlphaDawg, even if global warming is real, and a man-made threat, the proposed solutions are simply unfeasible? Sorry, I just want to be clear here, because it seems to me that many global warming deniers argue against global warming simply because of the potential political implications. You know, you never see anyone say, "Look, we probably caused global warming. Unfortunately, realistically, there's just not a whole lot we can do at this point - we're screwed."

Not that I'm saying one way or the other on whether or not we actually caused global warming, or one way or the other on whether or not trying curtail it is simply economically unfeasible, but I am open to the possibility that it's simply impractical to do much at this point.

OK, let me try to sum up my beliefs in one post:

[LIST=1]
[*]The Earth's climate may in fact be warming. Therefore, do not lump me in with the global warming deniers, which is a loaded term meant to equate global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

[*]No, we didn't cause it, because we are not able to. Call me an anthropogenic global warming skeptic if you must.

[*]Who's to say a little warming is a bad thing?

[*]The Earth's climate has changed dramatically throughout its history, as I'm sure you know. There have been Little Ice Ages (such as the one during the first half of the last millennium), Big Ice Ages (circa 25,000 years ago), and warming periods that would make this one pale in comparison. Recall earlier in this thread when Starkist noted the Vikings discovered "Greenland," which at the time was not the massive ice sheet it is now.

[*]Proposed "solutions" to this non-existent problem will do nothing but cripple our economy. The Kyoto Protocol called for CO2 emissions to return to their 1990 levels. What exactly would that result in?

[*]I do not oppose voluntary conservation. In fact, I encourage it!

[*]Modern environmentalism is nothing but a refuge for displaced socialists and communists.
[/LIST]Hope that clears things up.

No no, I'm just asking, what is your stance, if it turned out that global warming is, in fact, anthropogenic? What would you suggest we do? I simply ask because, looking at the situation, there is reason to believe that it wouldn't be feasible to quickly change anything even if that were the case.

At any rate, do you have any evidence to back up your claims that we cannot affect the environment? Because this thread has really got me digging deep, and what I've read so far certainly seems to imply the possibility, at least, that we can, in fact, affect the environment. Of course, there are still certain unanswered questions, like how much can we affect the environment, and how severe of an impact it would make if the Earth's temperature did go up by a few degrees. I'm not saying it's a certainty that we can influence the climate, but I've seen nothing that contradicts the idea.

I certainly understand that the Earth's climate does, in fact, fluctuate, and in fact, that's been part of what I've been looking into. Specifically, I've been researching the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed. Now, the interesting thing to note is that apparently, the Medieval Warm period may have been a localized phenomenon, and that globally, temperatures were actually cooler.

The thing that interests me most about the previous climate changes is that there are mechanisms to explain those climate changes. With our current warming trends, however, so far the only plausible mechanism appears to be an increase in greenhouse gases.

As I've said, I'm only really interested in this from a scientific perspective, but I've got to say, so far, while there's nothing to prove anthropogenic global warming, there's certainly evidence that it is a possibility.

Oh, and one last thing - regarding the term "deniers." To be fair, I had not thought of the connection to Holocaust deniers when I thought up the term. However, it is, in fact, meant to be insulting, as I'm describing people who irrationally cling to the notion that global warming, or anthropogenic global warming, is a complete fabrication. They are just as insane and irrational as Al Gore's True Believers, and deserve an equally degrading title. If you have doubts about global warming, I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but on the other hand, it's not enough to simply have doubts - I'm talking about the people who, with absolutely no evidence, go around proclaiming it to be a fraud. Especially after going through some of the evidence, it is absolutely absurd for anyone on either side to claim they know for sure.

If it turns out global warming is anthropogenic, I suggest we do nothing, as I'm not sold on a little warming being a bad thing. Who's to say the Earth's climate, right now or at any time in our history, is the ideal climate? I don't buy any of Algore's doomsday scenarios.

(Sometimes I think the only reason Hollyweird lefties are concerned about global warming is because a rise in sea level would wipe out their beachfront houses in Malibu.)

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV or these forums, so I personally have no definitive proof we cannot alter the environment. However, may I suggest you broaden your Google search a bit, as the scientific community is far from unanimous on this.

I stand by my belief that the term "global warming deniers" is a loaded and insulting term. Nobody's beliefs, no matter how irrational they may be, deserve to be compared to those who deny the slaughter of millions of people. Calling someone on the other side of the debate a "true believer" doesn't come close.

AlphaDawg wrote: as I'm not sold on a little warming being a bad thing.

You ought to research this more. (I mean that in a amicable way. I'm not trying to be an ass.)

The problem with global warming is not that it will be 2 degrees warmer in Philly. The problem is that it will be 3-4 degrees warmer in the arctic circle, causing massive glaciers to melt and raise the water levels. Imagine 1/2 of Florida underwater. (pretend this is a bad thing, just for arguments sake.) Southeast Asia underwater. Imagine 50 million people starving to death because of crops that are no longer adapted to shifting climates.

The economic and humanitarian implications of this scenario are truly astounding and will definitely be felt at home.

Facts that are not up for debate:

1) C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases produce a greenhouse effect on the earth. This has been directly observed, verified with both theoretical and experimental calculations. It is not debatable by rational people.

2) Humans produce a LOT of C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases. This has been directly observed and calculated. It is not debatable by rational people.

Facts that ARE up for debate:

1) Humans produce enough greenhouse gases to affect the global climate.

This is a problem that can be solved with scientific data. Currently, there is not a scientific consensus. However, the scientific community is leaning HEAVILY towards the probability that we produce enough greenhouse gases to seriously damage our ecosystem. Once more data becomes available, this question will probably answered.

The question is, will it be too late?

I have probably rehashed many points in this thread and said several completely redundant things. There were a couple of recent posts I did not read out of haste (I have school in a few minutes), but I wanted to respond to that one statement by Alpha.

Like I said, that connection hadn't occurred to me when I came up with that title.

Well, obviously the scientific community is not unanimous, but my point is that it's definitely a possibility. Thus far, in my research, I have only seen arguments that there is no evidence, not that it's impossible - at least by anyone credible. I have seen a few attempts to argue that anthropogenic global warming is physically impossible, but honestly, they were usually just unsupported speculation, and often misunderstood certain scientific concepts.

In other words, the concept of anthropogenic global warming is scientifically sound. What's really up for debate is how much of an impact it actually has, and that's just one of those "We'll have to wait and see" situations, because no amount of number crunching, no amount of simulation, can ever take every variable into account. There's always a chance that there's something we missed.

EDIT: Though Beldaran is right, that the number crunching and simulation running we've done so far does lean toward the notion that yes, it's likely.