New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[SpiritWarrior]

The problem is, by the time you arrive on proof that satisifes the most skeptical, it could be too late. This is the whole premise of GCC.

Not sure what the harm is in awareness. Religion asks for much more of a personal, emotional and spiritual commitment with no proof whatsoever and yet people are acting in its name daily. Some kill because of it. Others hate. Others donate thousands and spring up cults the thing. IDK. Shit, religion seems to be an easier sell even when it has no basis in science at all. Maybe science is going about this the wrong way and should sponsor priests into the fold to spread the "good word".

Bottom line is, it really doesn't affect the facts if people still choose to naysay in the face of united science. Unlike religion, it doesn't necessitate that the masses get on board, because it has already concluded that it's happening regardless. Believe it, don't believe it - it makes no difference when you think about it. Anyone can cast doubt on a religious view because by nature religion asks for the participation of your average Joe in order to survive. Unless you're a scientist, with credentials and theories that counter the extensive work of your peers, it is nothing more than opinion and doesn't hold up in the appropriate circles.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior The problem is, by the time you arrive on proof that satisifes the most skeptical, it could be too late. This is the whole premise of GCC.

The presumption you are making here is that conclucsive proof will support human-influenced global warming. My presumption is that there is no such proof possible because there are too many unknowns to attain conclusive proof.

The phrase "it could be too late" is Chicken Little thinking--it presumes that whatever happens must by definition be negative. Why is the glass always half empty?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Azred The presumption you are making here is that conclucsive proof will support human-influenced global warming. My presumption is that there is no such proof possible because there are too many unknowns to attain conclusive proof.

Right, I agree with the scientific community.

The phrase "it could be too late" is Chicken Little thinking--it presumes that whatever happens must by definition be negative. Why is the glass always half empty?

Always half-empty? Interesting way of viewing the situation. Science says that the result won't be good. It does not point to pollution as healing the planet, for example. Again, I fear by the time sufficient proof surfaces to put the naysayers at rest, it will be too late. That's just me, mind you. People may wise up beforehand, we can only hope. But again, it doesn't really matter anyways when you think about it. The people who can actually come up with ways to help the situation are already running with the science, so a minority of denial doesn't do anything but make for some interesting debates. Science has moved onward and upward.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Azred My presumption is that there is no such proof possible because there are too many unknowns to attain conclusive proof.

Really? The key presumption of science involves attaining proof of something unknown. So how many unknowns are we looking at here that it would dissuade science from exploring them all?

Or is there some new line of quantum enviromentalism which allows for pollution to both exist and yet simply have no effect, as long as we don't try to observe it, and if we let the cat out of the box.

Originally Posted by Azred The phrase "it could be too late" is Chicken Little thinking--it presumes that whatever happens must by definition be negative. Why is the glass always half empty?

If we can never know, it doesn't matter. That presumption is basically the glass is empty.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred The presumption you are making here is that conclucsive proof will support human-influenced global warming. My presumption is that there is no such proof possible because there are too many unknowns to attain conclusive proof. The phrase "it could be too late" is Chicken Little thinking--it presumes that whatever happens must by definition be negative. Why is the glass always half empty?

Correct it is also being used only against one side of the arugment.... instead of : if there is no human influnced global warming and we proceed as there is how much damage has been done by the time we find out they were wrong about human influence?????

The biggest problem I have is with the logic used... it isn't applied equaly to both sides. Any one who understands basic Algebra knows what ever you do to one side must also be done to the other side, OR you get a false answer. That logic holds true for math as well as thinking... LOL I know Az Chicken Littlin' isn't thinking it's feelin'

[Azred]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Always half-empty? Interesting way of viewing the situation. Science says that the result won't be good. It does not point to pollution as healing the planet, for example. Again, I fear by the time sufficient proof surfaces to put the naysayers at rest, it will be too late. That's just me, mind you. People may wise up beforehand, we can only hope. But again, it doesn't really matter anyways when you think about it. The people who can actually come up with ways to help the situation are already running with the science, so a minority of denial doesn't do anything but make for some interesting debates. Science has moved onward and upward.

Science doesn't move onwards and upwards when scientists ignore that fact they simply don't have all the answers vis-a-vis meterology. What is the presumed rate of heating due to human activity? 0.1 C per year? 0.3 C? 0.7 C? One large volcanic eruption can change average global temperatures by 1 C or more and it is impossible to predict when such an event might occur, thus predictions that "the temperature is always going to be rising" are false. Besides, as I have noted elsewhere--even if we presume that the Earth is warming, what if it is warming naturally and rising to the temperature where it is supposed to be? Efforts to cool the Earth would thus be disrupting the natural equilibrium temperature.

I am not talking about pollution. Pollution is bad and has nothing to do with global warming whatsoever...unless you try to classify carbon dioxide and water vapor as "pollutants". If that is the case, then what is to be done about all those naughty trees, grasses, and algae belching out all that dangerous carbon dioxide, hm?

We simply disagree on this topic and it certainly isn't personal. The sad fact is that neither of us will ever be in a position to do anything about it.

[machinehead]

Trees etc. take IN co2 and belch OUT oxygen.
It's called Photosynthesis.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Azred Science doesn't move onwards and upwards when scientists ignore that fact they simply don't have all the answers vis-a-vis meterology. What is the presumed rate of heating due to human activity? 0.1 C per year? 0.3 C? 0.7 C? One large volcanic eruption can change average global temperatures by 1 C or more and it is impossible to predict when such an event might occur, thus predictions that "the temperature is always going to be rising" are false. Besides, as I have noted elsewhere--even if we presume that the Earth is warming, what if it is warming naturally and rising to the temperature where it is supposed to be? Efforts to cool the Earth would thus be disrupting the natural equilibrium temperature. I am not talking about pollution. Pollution is bad and has nothing to do with global warming whatsoever...unless you try to classify carbon dioxide and water vapor as "pollutants". If that is the case, then what is to be done about all those naughty trees, grasses, and algae belching out all that dangerous carbon dioxide, hm? We simply disagree on this topic and it certainly isn't personal. The sad fact is that neither of us will ever be in a position to do anything about it.

Well, it does and has. They have already implemented numerous ways in which to prevent further damage and continue to do so. Look at the various products labelled "Green". The cars, the machinery, the movements, the laws etc. We've been seeing it for decades.

Unfortunately, while we can demand specific details and refuse to move on until we receive them, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is taking a "time-out". Like you said, we ain't in a position to do anything about it. They don't care if people do not agree - they agree and have released their findings for anyone interested in how they got there. Their collegues are all in unison here so it's a done deal for 'em, which is why science pushes forward with it while the rest of us non-scientists bicker over the existence to begin with.

Unlike a political debate, where talking-heads vomit out manufactured opinion in hopes to sway and influence the polls to garner votes for their candidate or party, on this issue the jury is in. What's more, the moment they decided, they got up and left to deal with it.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by machinehead Trees etc. take IN co2 and belch OUT oxygen. It's called Photosynthesis.

To be fair, plants also undergo respiration (the process that emits CO2). However the net result of all successful plants is that they fix more carbon than respire.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by machinehead Trees etc. take IN co2 and belch OUT oxygen. It's called Photosynthesis.

Yeah, it's kind of a conundrum.

They do give out some Co2, but not as much as they take in. A sick or dying tree will release more unless it is not left to decay, and converted into wooden planks or something. At night, trees release some of the Co2 they absorb because photosynth. cannot happen at night so they release some of their "energy". But the amount is smaller than what they took in that day, because they need less energy to function at night since there's no process going on.

As for a tree that dies, this can release all it's co2 and is considered more harmful. But see, the seeds from plants and trees fall around them, ensuring that another will take its place to kinda stopgap that excess. This is why forests are so important and why de-forestation is so damaging. And a just-growing plant or tree will absorb more co2 than a mature one because it is thriving. Another thing to note is that fruit plants or plants that bear anything tend to absorb more co2 because they need more process to bear goods.