YOUR OPINION PLEASE...

Posted by: rational | 10 Jun 09 | 13 comments

| More

(TRY THIS MIND GAME) The earth is getting cooler. Science proves it. There’s a wealth of irrefutable data confirming that cooling is indeed in progress. The damages of global cooling have been listed and studied: The ice packs and glaciers are increasing in size, the polar bear population is booming, tropical insect populations and global crop production are declining, there’s less rain and the oceans are receding, etc. etc… What is it that makes global cooling good or bad? If shrinking ice caps are bad, then growing ice caps must be good, right? If fewer polar bears are bad, more bears are good, right? Who’s to say whether these things are good or bad? ----- ----- Pretty silly isn’t it? The reality of climate change is that it is inevitable. It happens with or without humankind. Our impact might be measurable, but our efforts to mitigate that impact are superfluous in context of the cosmic timescale. Take your pick: warming, or cooling… stagnation is not allowed in the cosmic equation. ----- ----- The TRULY scientific response to global warming is: “Nice fact.” The question isn’t whether or not global warming exists… The question is who should determine if the net effects of global warming are good or bad? Who do you believe, and why do you believe them? (This is beginning to sound an awful lot like religion…) ----- ----- Here are some other facts that require answers: 1) Water is wet. (Is this good or bad?); 2) The sun is very hot. (Is this good or bad?); 3) Insects inhabit the rainforest. (Is this good or bad?). Et cetera… ----- ----- I contend that the list of positive and negative attributes for the above facts, including global warming, is remarkably balanced. In other words, there is an impressive list of global warming benefits that is denied by “environmentalists.” Why do you think this is so?

Main

Recent Posts

Comments (13)

whalesdeservelife on June 10, 2009

I am a marine biologist and geographic analyst, and I specialize in our oceans. I would like to say many of the above things are BAD because they can adapt very quickly so no matter what, they will get bigger, fatter, more deadly, and inhabit more areas.

I DON'T DO ENVIROMENTALLY THREATENED
furey on June 10, 2009

Certainly, variations in our climate are natural and have occurred in the past(hence the ice ages). What's concerning is that the recent changes are taking place in a much shorter period of time and that they directly correlate to amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. We need to find ways of living that allow natural processes to take place without drastic human impact.
rational on June 10, 2009

...I don't get it. According to the scientific data, the increases in CO2 happen AFTER the temperature increases (by 200-800 years), not before. It's a proven scientific fact that global temperature drives CO2, not vice versa. But regardless, why are we ignoring the benefits of global warming? And are we certain they're outweighed by the hazards of global warming? (And one more question: Exactly how did they measure the global CO2 levels before the Industrial Revolution?)
mikeg on June 10, 2009

Can't help but notice you provide no links to any of this "irrefutable data" you keep going on and on about. Wonder why that is...?

Here's some REAL data for you:

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), there is a clear trend over the past few decades of the sea ice being in decline:

"The data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2008 sea ice minimum was slightly above the 2007 record, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.7 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#really_declining

That last part is key: "sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for." No natural fluctuations in climate patterns that we know of could account for the Arctic ice decline.

What is the one variable that has been introduced that could explain this decline?

You guessed it: increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

I'm willing to bet "rational" here can't find one credible source for his implied claim that temperature rise preceding CO2 level rise somehow disproves the anthropogenic climate change theory altogether. On the other hand, here is a very credible source discussing why these temperature lags in no way disprove the rest of the scientific claims that climate change is happening:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

As for how we know what CO2 levels were like pre-Industrial Revolution, that would be due to ice core samples. Surprised in all your apparently vast research into this issue, you never figured that out.

While it is true that so far this year's Arctic ice melt has not been as bad as last year's, you have to remember that last year was the second worst on record, 2007 being the worst, for Arctic ice melt in the summer. So being slightly up from those numbers is not in itself a good sign.

So, "rational," what say you to explain away this actual data? You being so open-minded, I'm sure you'll consider it fairly and impartially and get back to us all with plenty of data -- real data, not just your assertion that data exists -- to prove the NSIDC wrong.

The only silly thing I can see here is you trying to somehow equate the phenomena of the sun being hot and water being wet to human consumption of fossil fuels creating global warming.
rational on June 11, 2009

Excellent comment Mike, now let’s see if you respond... By the way, you never really addressed the crux of my Post.

First, you’re countering an argument that I don’t even make! I don’t deny global warming is occurring, just that we’re the primary cause of the warming. I agree the ice is declining; apparently you deny that there are benefits to that fact. (You haven’t answered my original questions… Is it good or bad that water is wet?) Your first link agrees that there are more factors than CO2 causing global warming… like the SUN, among others. Your link fully supports my statement that the raise in CO2 happens 800 years AFTER temperature increases and their attempt to explain it is laughingly lame. Ha ha. Not credible. Try again. (By the way, why didn’t Gore ever mention this little fact about temperature preceding CO2?)

Here are some sources that support the other truth: (I can give you hundreds more if you'd like.)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

http://weather.missouri.edu/gcc/LupoMOMed.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

We can evoke dueling scientists all day long and that won’t get us anywhere. You'll spit on my scientist and I'll spit on yours. Are you saying you can’t use your own brain? Pardon that cruel jab. (Greenpeace wouldn’t hire someone with independent thinking!) I’m aware that ice cores contain pre-industrial atmosphere markers. Were the same ice cores used to calculate the post-industrial benchmarks too, or were additional sensors and “industrial” technologies utilized?

Again, I’m not arguing that ice isn’t melting and planet isn’t warming. I’m arguing that there are exactly as many benefits of those facts as there are hazards. That is the subject of this Post. And I’m agreeing with the bulk of non-celebrity scientist who say it’s not man-caused.

You said you can’t understand the parallels I presented. It’s a conceptual exercise. I’ll excuse your ignorance, and reduce it to simpler terms. Try it again: Global warming is just a fact. Water is wet, and the sun is hot. (These are just other facts.) There are as many good things about these facts as there are bad. Get it? Water is good because it sustains life; it is bad because you can drown in it. The hot sun is good because it’s our source of energy; it’s bad because its radiation can kill you if exposed too long. Et cetera. Now you try it… Global warming is good because: __________________.
aerisin on June 14, 2009

Wow, I have never in my life seen such morons. How can you be so stupid? You stated that Polar Bears have greater numbers than ever...really? Is that why we put them on the endangerd species list? I never knew that list meant there were plenty of them. Also, I don't want to hear any garbage about why they are declining. The fact is that the sea ice is shrinking. The bears can't hunt without the ice. No ice=starving bears. Starving bears=no bears. What is so complicated about that?
rational on June 15, 2009

Yo aerisin... go read the post again; it's an intellectual mind game... (Pretend?) It asks you to use your own mind to answer some CONCEPTUAL questions based on a what-if exercise. If you've got a brain, go back and try it again. I think you'll be able to get it... (But then again mikeg doesn't get it either, and I'm pretty sure he does have a brain. Go figure.)
manncer on June 19, 2009

And why are you posing this mind game? Are we supposed to see now that global warming is not so bad? climate changes occur naturally over the years, however, there is an added factor over the last 150 years or so. The population is increasing sharply since the 50's estimated at almost 7 billion people now. Countries like China that are expanding industrially produce more and more pollution: 40,000,000,000 lbs of aerosol particle pollution of which 4,500,000,000 reaches North America. More cars, still without much pollution control, more factory farms, more logging in the rain forests, more industry to produce many things that won't decay, and cause pollution themselves. The natural balance has been tipped dangerously. Climate cooling and warming were a natural phenomenon hundreds of years ago, but not now. Mankind has added trillions of tons of pollution to the atmosphere. That is very unnatural.
rational on June 20, 2009

Mancer, that’s a reasonable question… The point is that global warming is not ONLY bad, and that climate stasis is impossible in universe. Global cooling is the only alternative, and it’s no better! ----- ----- Civilization is amplifying the the situation, not causing it. Eliminating pollution is good and worthwhile for many reasons, but stopping global warming is not one of them! ----- ----- Fighting global warming is a monumentally stupid waste of humankind’s resources. Please read this speech by Michael Crichton with an open mind: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html ----- ----- He has some ideas where our resources should be redirected…
manncer on June 21, 2009

I read Mr.Crichton's speech. Statistics can be manipulated to underscore anyone's opinion. I guess what worries me is that your saying: let's stop fighting global warming and feed the hungry. Very noble, but we (The industrial countries) have more than enough resources to fight global warming and hunger and disease except we don't want to. Why you want to minimize the problem of global warming, I can't figure out. Naysayers always try to put down one theory to exalt their own, when both theories have value.
rational on June 22, 2009

Manncer, you're right: statistics can be manipulated... who's do you trust, a scientist’s or a politician's? I'm not proposing to minimize the problem of global warming, just point out the stupidity of shoveling more resources at it than to the truly urgent and SOLVABLE problems... And, do YOU deny the benefits of global warming, our just choose to blindly follow celebrity politicians? That’s the subject of this post.
manncer on July 04, 2009

I understand your point, and commend your sincerity. I loath celebrity politicians. I don't deny the benefits of natural global warming, but this goes beyond that. I believe that there is a point where we will not recover. Europe is already, and has been for years working under a "cap". Other countries have signed the Kyoto treaty also. Even if we decide that global warming is a natural phenomenon,with beneficial results, how can we keep emitting trillions of tons of pollution into the air and water and land?
rational on July 04, 2009

Hear hear! That's my point. Pollution is bad for its OWN sake (for the health of our breathing air), not because of its effect on global warming... And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Let's focus on the really bad stuff, not the good. Let's stop being misguided by celebrities and politicians who are motivated by agendas rather than hard science.

You must have a Greenpeace or Facebook account and be logged in to post comments.
Please log in or create an account to share your comments
or connect with facebook: Connect with Facebook

About Me

rational

Logic & reason, mixed with a healthy portion of fun, from the heart of fly-over country. Architect & writer: "Climate change is real, and so is the misguided effort of those who think we can prevent it. Sustainability is a worthy goal... let's go there the right way."

Contact Me >

Invite rational to
Your Personal Activist Network

Greenpeace