quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
This is the real danger of the polarization of todays politics, here we all are spouting rhetoric and propaganda (we're all guilty from time to time), when we are all still people and forget that we can disagree on some things but find other things in common. I think one of the failings of the modern world and the way we live through media is our failure to empathize with our fellow man and thus the art of compromise is almost utterly lost. Aimail and I have, on the surface it turns out, been on the polar opposite (no pun intended ) from Blutarski on some of the topics here but it comes out that it's not as black and white as a flame war would have you believe. This is the danger with the divisiveness, it DIVIDES us.


P.S. Needless to say the last couple of posts in this thread have given me that warm fuzzy feeling of hope, lol.

Yep, you've just hit on another point. I'm all for scientific research into climate change etc and government policy dictated on their advice.

What I've had enough of is the polarization of politics by special interest groups and the seemingly increasing tyranny of the well-intentioned. It spoils and devalues the real research done by scientists and doesn't help anyone. I seem to be bombarded in real life by verbal diatribes from either the right or the left, environmental groups, vegetarians, overpopulation theorists, religious nuts. All telling me what I should think, I'm quite capable of thinking. I just need to read the latest advice from scientists then make up my mind. I don't need to be told I'm going to hell. I don't want to be told all the CCTV cameras are for my own safety. These groups seem to take delight in accusing you of being some evil scumbag if say you even make a well researched rebuttal to the idea of overpopulation.

Ideology. I've had enough of it. Bloody Prussian style education system has a lot to do with it.

I used to be a firm believer in global warming up until about 2005, when I actually started studying the climate data. I could not help but notice that the left-wing people and their helpers in the main stream media only spouted pro-global warming information while ignoring ( until quite recently ) the data that refutes that we humans are affecting the climate very much. But this is still mostly the case as you might note, unless your head is buried in your butt, that stories like the one I posted about glaciers recently are ignored by the media. The BBC over in England is one of the few news outlets that is reporting on both the pro and cons regarding the phenomenon of late. While in the U.S., all you see is pro-global warming pretty much.

And factors such as temperature reporting stations going to more urbans areas from rural areas in the past 50 years is also ignored. I always notice that my backyard shade temperature is always about 2 to 5 degrees cooler than what's reported from the airports and downtown areas locally, which have a lot of concrete and asphalt around them. This has had a huge impact on what appear to be land temperature increases in recent times but they are no such thing. The fact that more data is collected from the "heat islands" is a fact apparently lost to most of the global warming pushers. Or they purposely ignore such things because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe.

Also interesting is the some scientists now dispute the "hockey stick" data graph that was used a lot in the 90's to try to bring more global warming believers on board. There's a lot to be disputed just there alone.

My overall belief now is that there has been an affect on the climate by humans on the temperature but it's not nearly as big as what is claimed. It hardly indicates a need for panic or any action for that matter. The influences of the sun and other factors do far more to warm or cool the planet than we ever could even if we double our population and pollution.

Also of note is it's been made clear that there have been periods in earth's history when there was far more C02 from natural causes than there is now, and with no dire consequences. We were much warmer in the medieval warming period around 900 to 1150 AD than we are now and there were no catastrophic, earth ending disasters at that time. The Vikings had colonies in Greenland and it was named Greenland because it was green! It's not been green there anywhere on the island for centuries. It's much cooler there now, even with so-called global warming.

Personally Mortoma I also believe it's not as dire as some think. Somewhere between what you believe and the more dire predictions. Before we decide however, the question "Have we interrupted global cooling" needs to be asked as opposed to just deciding that the earth as been hotter in the past and so therefore any anthropogenic climate change is not that big of a deal. We are you see, overdue for an ice age. Before the 20th century, earth was generally cooling.

One should dictate policy on the best possible current data, if it looks like there could be a problem then we should take reasonable steps to insure that in a worst case scenario we are not completely bummed. An escape route, like you have when Mountaineering. This takes some planning ahead, not drastic changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:
Blutarski, I want to specialize in genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis!

This threads given me some hope. Some nice balanced opinions which makes a real change.

..... Aimail, I think that you have chosen to pursue what will prove to be a very important, busy and dynamic field in the near future.

quote:

Originally posted by mortoma:
I used to be a firm believer in global warming up until about 2005, when I actually started studying the climate data. I could not help but notice that the left-wing people and their helpers in the main stream media only spouted pro-global warming information while ignoring ( until quite recently ) the data that refutes that we humans are affecting the climate very much.

I hear what you're saying and even agree with some of it, but the bolded part is exactly the decisiveness I was talking about.

quote:

This is the real danger of the polarization of todays politics, here we all are spouting rhetoric and propaganda (we're all guilty from time to time), when we are all still people and forget that we can disagree on some things but find other things in common. I think one of the failings of the modern world and the way we live through media is our failure to empathize with our fellow man and thus the art of compromise is almost utterly lost. Aimail and I have, on the surface it turns out, been on the polar opposite (no pun intended ) from Blutarski on some of the topics here but it comes out that it's not as black and white as a flame war would have you believe. This is the danger with the divisiveness, it DIVIDES us.

I agree and it's what I was trying to get at in my post in this topic. If there really is an urgent danger, shoudn't we be working together to figure it out? If the reports are true, there won't BE an economy. But on the other hand, buying a Prius isn't going to do anything either.

The problem of course is the urgency presented by Al Gore and his supporters. They think they can convince the world with a power point presentation. Not gonna happen.

Both sides are presenting this as a partisan "you're with us or you're against us" political debate, which is stupid and leads us nowhere. Just because some oil company bought out Rush Limbaugh and you read some right-wing blog post or some articles doesn't mean you're suddenly an expert on climatology, and watching An Inconvenient Truth doesn't either, unfortunately.