Spring Controversey Series: Climate Change

[Fairy]

Since we're on this kick of controversial discussions and seem to be keeping them civil enough that no one's getting their panties in enough of a bunch to have their head explode, I thought why not continue and see if we can have more really valuable discussion. Who knows, I may end up with the exploding head, but the past few threads were interesting. I am not going to change my mind, and I doubt anyone else will, either, but I did really get alot out of what drives us in our opinions, especially more aggressive versions of my OWN opinion that I don't go as far on. So, thought I'd start with this politically charged one, as it's very important to me, but it also doesn't really have alot of potential for stirring up deeply personal, religious, and moral beliefs. Right? Ok.

ETA --> Poll is here. I've changed this to be "climate change."

[lizzywednesday]

The worst part about the term "global warming" is that it over-simplifies a complex issue.

Climate change is not easily described by simple terms like "warming" or "cooling."

The thing that drives me up the wall is people who, when they are hit with a harsh winter, insist that "global warming" must be a hoax because they're freezing.

It's overall climate change. It doesn't apply to local weather, although local weather is impacted by overall planetary climatology in small but significant ways.

(Not that I know anything anyway; I'm just a geology buff.)

[ourbabygirl]

As I was watching the news last night and the weather lady said that Atlanta got snow yesterday, and was much colder than we are up here (we're having warmer-than-usual temps this week, even up into the 40's), I just thought about how crazy our weather is and how could this NOT be climate change? With all the natural disasters (multiple earthquakes, tsunamis, not to mention all the hurricanes & tornadoes, & wildfires in CA), it really scares me and I worry for our lifetime and that of our children.

[Reyadawnbringer]

The worst part about the term "global warming" is that it over-simplifies a complex issue.

Climate change is not easily described by simple terms like "warming" or "cooling."

The thing that drives me up the wall is people who, when they are hit with a harsh winter, insist that "global warming" must be a hoax because they're freezing.

It's overall climate change. It doesn't apply to local weather, although local weather is impacted by overall planetary climatology in small but significant ways.

(Not that I know anything anyway; I'm just a geology buff.)

OMG a big HUGE :yeahthat:

My mother and I fight about this all. the. time.

[ourbabygirl]

Just wanted to add that I think you're hilarious, Fairy, and I appreciate you sharing your fun sense of humor with us here (e.g. with the poll options and other times)! :ROTFLMAO: :cheerleader1:

[lizzywednesday]

...

My mother and I fight about this all. the. time.

I have several friends whose heads I would like to bash against the wall about this, but, because I like them otherwise, I feel correcting them would damage or even destroy the friendship and I'd rather keep the friend than have to be right.

[Reyadawnbringer]

It IS happening. There is no doubt about it. WE are the cause. Never before has the planet endured such a quick onslaught as what we humans are doing.

The KEY to fixing it is when people quit fighting over the semantics of it and get down to the hard facts. Global warming, cooling, climate change, whatever we want to call it, DRASTIC changes are happening to our planet. Once people quit focusing on the localities of their temperature changes and look at the effects the WORLD over, THEN we can begin to address the problem.

I find that tunnel vision is a problem with many of the issues we try to fix today. We NEED to stop seeing ourselves as just "our country" and only worrying about what happens here. The whole world has gone global and I feel like we are the last to jump on the train.

/catch breath. Ok, I am gonna step off my soapbox now and quit ranting :D I am VERY opinionated about this and could GO ON FOREVER, but alas, I have work to do- so I am just gonna pretend this thread doesn't exist until I get home.... (fat chance).

[vonfirmath]

Considering that we've had ice ages in the past, and we're still here -- the issue isn't climate change. Its whether anything we do can affect the global weather. If not, it makes NO sense to cripple ourselves economically to prevent it. (And if we don't know what we are doing to cause the changes, or even what the changes are, maybe it behooves us to actually FIGURE THAT OUT before making widescale changes that might just escalate the problem)

[Fairy]

Just wanted to add that I think you're hilarious, Fairy, and I appreciate you sharing your fun sense of humor with us here (e.g. with the poll options and other times)! :ROTFLMAO: :cheerleader1:

Aww, thanks, man :-)

[srhs]

Oh Fairy, you know I luv ya, but what's with the baited wording on the options?

[Laurel]

The thing that drives me up the wall is people who, when they are hit with a harsh winter, insist that "global warming" must be a hoax because they're freezing.


Great Jon Stewart clip here:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/player/loader/?CONFIG_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.mtvnservices.com%2F player%2Fconfig.jhtml%3Furi%3Dmgid%253Acms%253Aite m%253Acomedycentral.com%253A264247%26group%3Denter tainment%26type%3Dnormal%26ref%3dbeltwayblips.dail yradar.com&uri=mgid%3Acms%3Aitem%3Acomedycentral.com%3A264247&group=entertainment&type=normal&ref=beltwayblips.dailyradar.com&geo=US

[sariana]

I chose "Other" because I do believe it's happening, I don't know if we're the cause, but I think we should try to do something about it regardless.

Conservation is a good idea whether we're on the verge of doom or not.

The sticking point is determining what action to take so as not to create a new problem.

[Fairy]

Oh Fairy, you know I luv ya, but what's with the baited wording on the options?

Is it? I'm very sorry! I meant to be funny, not baity, I really did. Tell me what's baity, maybe I can fix it.

[AnnieW625]

Considering that we've had ice ages in the past, and we're still here -- the issue isn't climate change. Its whether anything we do can affect the global weather. If not, it makes NO sense to cripple ourselves economically to prevent it. (And if we don't know what we are doing to cause the changes, or even what the changes are, maybe it behooves us to actually FIGURE THAT OUT before making widescale changes that might just escalate the problem)

I voted other but I pretty much agree with the above post.

My DH works in the air quality industry as an air quality engineer and while he knows there is a problem he isn't convinced it's as bad as people make it out to be. He doesn't get the hype of hybrid cars (diesels and compact cars get just as good mileage), and is a firm believer that air purifying machines cause more in home o zone than what's good for us (do a google search for home air purifiers and you'll find some good results). Also neither of us really get this whole carbon footprint thingy. Yes I know we need more trees, but I am not going to donate my extra money to reduce my carbon footprint because I drive an SUV, and take a few plane trips during the year.

We live in the metro Los Angeles region and about 8 miles east of one of the busiest ports in the USA, if not the world so our air quality isn't great, but prior to his agency (CARB) being set up in the mid to late 60s air quality all over Southern California was 1000x worse than it is now. My dad recalls growing up in Pasadena at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and the air quality being so bad that he couldn't go outside for hikes and there was no way you could see downtown LA from any part of the basin. While I do believe that less and or more economical cars can help I don't believe in some of the more drastic measures that include banning large SUVs, dark colored cars, and such.

AQMD website with photos of smog in LA:
http://aqmd.gov/news1/Archives/History/50th_photos.htm

[Indianamom2]

Considering that we've had ice ages in the past, and we're still here -- the issue isn't climate change. Its whether anything we do can affect the global weather. If not, it makes NO sense to cripple ourselves economically to prevent it. (And if we don't know what we are doing to cause the changes, or even what the changes are, maybe it behooves us to actually FIGURE THAT OUT before making widescale changes that might just escalate the problem)

:yeahthat:

I do not believe we are in any kind of crisis regarding the climate. I personally think there's A LOT of political manuevering behind this and it has resulted in a great deal of fear mongering...particularly directed at our children. I am very much a skeptic.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and there is climate change. We have NO IDEA why or if we are the cause or how to fix it (or if it can be fixed). There is absolutely no reason to make drastic hamstringing policy changes that will result in lowering our standard of living until we know a HECK of a lot more. Period.

[ThreeofUs]

Rant deleted. Not in my worry budget for today! (<= s/o from another thread)

[Ceepa]

This is something I choose not to get upset about. I do what I can to be overall eco-friendly but "global warning crisis" talk doesn't make me lay awake at night.

[MoJo]

I actually voted other!

I believe the climate is changing. Always has, always will.

I don't believe that mankind is causing it.

I don't believe in global warming. (In the 70s, the fear was the coming ice age).

I do believe in conservation/recycling/pollution control/planting trees etc on their own merits, not to prevent global warming.

I don't believe in carbon credits etc. That is a way for other people to get rich off of my fear/guilt/etc.

[Fairy]

Rant deleted. Not in my worry budget for today! (<= s/o from another thread)

But ... but ... Your rant was really thought-provoking! :-)

[scrooks]

As I was watching the news last night and the weather lady said that Atlanta got snow yesterday, and was much colder than we are up here (we're having warmer-than-usual temps this week, even up into the 40's), I just thought about how crazy our weather is and how could this NOT be climate change? With all the natural disasters (multiple earthquakes, tsunamis, not to mention all the hurricanes & tornadoes, & wildfires in CA), it really scares me and I worry for our lifetime and that of our children.
:yeahthat: The whole thing scares me too. All of the earthquakes an weird winter weather. How can you not think somethings up? I too worry for the future of my kids....

[shilo]

Rant deleted. Not in my worry budget for today! (<= s/o from another thread)

oh, man, that stinks. because i couldn't agree with your rant more, i just didn't quote fast enough ;)!!! as much as politically driven talking points on _both_ sides in this country have confused this particular situation, the underlying crisis in this country that allows such a thing to happen is the fundamental and widespread scientific illiteracy. as a fellow scientist, i share your frustration. i wish we had more options on TV for our kids (and ourselves) to see legitimate scientists genuinely excited about and explaining their work (think the nasa panels or jpl panels after a launch). we'd all be much better off if we spent more time listening to the research scientists and understanding the facts rather than watching the talking heads on fox'news' and m(is)snbc. off my soap box.

oh, and i voted choice 1 if it matters.

[fivi2]

I'm not sure if this fits in one of the options, but
I do believe the climate is changing. I do believe to some extent it is natural. But I also believe we are making it worse/speeding it along (along with doing some other pretty bad things to our environment).

don't know whether we can do anything about it.

Also, really curious to read pp's deleted rant! :)

[billysmommy]

I actually voted other!

I believe the climate is changing. Always has, always will.

I don't believe that mankind is causing it.

I don't believe in global warming. (In the 70s, the fear was the coming ice age).

I do believe in conservation/recycling/pollution control/planting trees etc on their own merits, not to prevent global warming.

I don't believe in carbon credits etc. That is a way for other people to get rich off of my fear/guilt/etc.


:yeahthat:

Pretty much what I was going to write but much more succint :)

[egoldber]

the underlying crisis in this country that allows such a thing to happen is the fundamental and widespread scientific illiteracy

:yeahthat:

I think this is actually a worse crisis than climate change.

[pb&j]

We're contributing to it, we need to fix it.

I am a bleeding heart liberal. But, I really HATE with a PASSION the whole idea of "carbon offsets." Carbon offsets don't DO anything - it's not like the CO2 you produce is being cancelled out. Just, somewhere else in the world, someone else didn't produce CO2. While offsets may serve as an investment in clean/green energy, they don't do a thing to actively reduce or remediate CO2 emissions.

ETA: I agree w/the pp's that scientific illiteracy is a huge problem. And I agree that I'd rather see NASA nerds rather than talking heads on TV any day!!

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I believe in it. I think the industrial revolution really was the start. We are releasing gasses into the atmosphere, how could that not change things? There is a hole in the ozone layer, too. If CFC's didn't help cause it, why are they banned? I can't see how people look at smog in large cities and not think it is effecting the earth. "Global Warming" is ofter mistaken as being only warming, so climate change is a much better term. Yes the climate is cyclical, and we have had ice ages, etc. But the changes now are being magnified by mankind. I don't know how it became such a political thing. There is science (albeit some is skewed towards us lefties) but there is legit science. Although I also believe in evolution, so what do I know.

I believe some damage done, cannot be undone, but that every little bit helps.

[jse107]

I believe some damage done, cannot be undone, but that every little bit helps.

Yup. We do what we can everyday to be a little more "green."

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Has anyone ever wondered what cigarette smoke does to air quality/pollution?

[Reyadawnbringer]

Has anyone ever wondered what cigarette smoke does to air quality/pollution?

ALL the time.

[motherofone]

Climate change is real and a large component of what is happening and what will happen is human caused. I really cannot understand how people doubt this. Worse and more worrisome to me than wacky weather is the problem of ocean acidification. The oceans can't buffer all the carbon dioxide and the ph of the ocean is dropping. This will be devastating to marine life. Not only will the corals suffer, but the tiny photosynthesizing critters that make up the base of the ocean food chain will not be able to make their shells (look up foraminifera and pteropods.)
I have a PhD in marine geology and many of my buddies are studying these issues. They are not getting rich. They are not making up data. They are worried.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Climate change is real and a large component of what is happening and what will happen is human caused. I really cannot understand how people doubt this. Worse and more worrisome to me than wacky weather is the problem of ocean acidification. The oceans can't buffer all the carbon dioxide and the ph of the ocean is dropping. This will be devastating to marine life. Not only will the corals suffer, but the tiny photosynthesizing critters that make up the base of the ocean food chain will not be able to make their shells (look up foraminifera and pteropods.)
I have a PhD in marine geology and many of my buddies are studying these issues. They are not getting rich. They are not making up data. They are worried.

I can't stand it when scientists are accused of making facts up to benefit a political party/agenda. That irks me. How people can doubt facts, but have faith in things like religion (I am not bashing religion, just using "faith" in the unknown as an example ) baffles me.

[Reyadawnbringer]

I can't stand it when scientists are accused of making facts up to benefit a political party/agenda. That irks me. How people can doubt facts, but have faith in things like religion (I am not bashing religion, just using "faith" in the unknown as an example ) baffles me.

OMG a HUGE :yeahthat:

Seriously, if you look at the data out there- the "scientists" claiming that all of this is a myth and is being blown out of porportion are likely taking money from a political party to say that. The overwhelming evidence (and by evidence I mean data based on sound scientific method) states that the climate is changing at a more rapid rate in the last 100 years than it has for millions of years prior.

Being a religious person I believe that God has charged us all with the responsibility to take care of the things that have been given to us. I would expect my child to take care of something I have given him and not be reckless and destructive to it, just as I believe God expects from me. So, not to turn this into a religious arguement but yea, I have a real problem with people having faith in something that cannot be proven only to thumb their noses at hard data when presented with it.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

OMG a HUGE :yeahthat:

Seriously, if you look at the data out there- the "scientists" claiming that all of this is a myth and is being blown out of porportion are likely taking money from a political party to say that. The overwhelming evidence (and by evidence I mean data based on sound scientific method) states that the climate is changing at a more rapid rate in the last 100 years than it has for millions of years prior.

Being a religious person I believe that God has charged us all with the responsibility to take care of the things that have been given to us. I would expect my child to take care of something I have given him and not be reckless and destructive to it, just as I believe God expects from me. So, not to turn this into a religious arguement but yea, I have a real problem with people having faith in something that cannot be proven only to thumb their noses at hard data when presented with it.

:bighand: Well said. Religion doesn't need to be anti-science. I think God must be so disappointed he gave us this beautiful place and we are treating it so poorly. Ignoring things and leaving them for the next generation to deal with is irresponsible IMHO.

[ThreeofUs]

But ... but ... Your rant was really thought-provoking! :-)


oh, man, that stinks. because i couldn't agree with your rant more,


Thank you guys very much! I just didn't feel like a rant was really what I should have made of it, and it got me upset. As I should be, probably. ;)

FWIW, as a scientist-by-training, with a DH who is a practicing scientist, and friends on the front lines in the climate monitoring, tracking, and model development worlds, I get sad and upset that people have no real idea what's going on in the world climate.

Instead, the data is generally digested into sound bytes (right and wrong, skewed to both sides' agendas) and transmitted by talking heads who have no idea what they're talking about. And the talking heads are just reading teleprompters and worried about ratings, so what do they care?

I just don't know how anyone who's not familiar with the data can decide whom they are going to trust.

*sigh*

[kijip]

I am somewhere between 1 and 2. I have to be 1 for my family's future. :tongue5: But it does not keep me up nights. Carbon offsets are nonsense though.

I don't consider this a matter of debate. If people can't see the writing on the wall (or the ice melting!) or the mass impact of human activity rapidly speeding this up, ok then. I guess scientific consensus means a lot to me. There is no making people see reason in the face of deep political ideology.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I am somewhere between 1 and 2. I have to be 1 for my family's future. :tongue5: But it does not keep me up nights. Carbon offsets are nonsense though.

I don't consider this a matter of debate. If people can't see the writing on the wall (or the ice melting!) or the mass impact of human activity rapidly speeding this up, ok then. I guess scientific consensus means a lot to me. There is no making people see reason in the face of deep political ideology.

:bighand:

I agree. People generally believe what is in line with their religious and political beliefs. And those aren't things that change very often...

[vonfirmath]

I can't stand it when scientists are accused of making facts up to benefit a political party/agenda. That irks me. How people can doubt facts, but have faith in things like religion (I am not bashing religion, just using "faith" in the unknown as an example ) baffles me.

Perhaps because of the recent admissions which had scientists talking back and forth to each other about just that -- making up data to match the conclusion they were SURE was true when the data they had did not match.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm#_ftn1
Under "The Trick... to Hide the decline"
"23. The deletion of post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD reconstruction gave the IPCC (2001) temperature reconstructions a rhetorical appearance of consistency that did not exist in the underlying data (as shown below)"


"24. A somewhat different "trick" was used in the World Meteorological Organization 1999 report (shown in Figure 8 below). Jones substituted instrumental temperatures for MXD reconstruction values after 1960, resulting in an entirely false rhetorical impression of the efficacy of tree ring reconstructions. Far from this technique being "legitimate", Mann himself at realclimate had stated precisely the opposite about the splicing of temperatures and reconstructions into a single graft:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
"2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements. "