People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change

Originally posted by martin:

The best evidence that the human impact is minimal is the fact that the climate was previously warmer before the industrial revolution. This is a very troublesome fact for those pushing the idea of AGW (had to use that term, picked it up on my last go around on this subject.....means anthropomorphic global warming.....or AGW to those in the know!).:wave:

Anyway, this means that the current uptrend over the last century is within the normal fluctuations on the earth and nothing to be alarmed about and certainly nothing that mankind is able to significantly influence. They will try to dance around this subject but you can find a lot of graphs that support this line of thought.

Here is one:

 

Just in addition to the above graph, this graph pictured below seems to be somewhat in dispute but what isn't in regard to this subject? The science does not seem to be quite settled to me.....anyway, the blue lined graph has since been rejected as flawed. It was used as one of the main supporting pieces in the original IPCC document. For some reason the redlined graph is somewhat in dispute at the moment.

I would argue it is in dispute because it clearly shows the earth was warmer not that long ago but regardless the earth was definitely warmer a long, long time ago.

For what its worth.....

 

that's bad logic friend. the human body's chemistry is a delicate balance and changing mineral balances a few percentage points could kill you. Just as that lady who downed a couple gallons of water in 15 minutes to win a radio station contest.

 

If that was the case, humans would have been wiped out by volcano eruptions years ago.

 

Originally posted by Red:

Nah, nothing new....battle fatigue set in early on me. I still maintain that there is enough evidence to support the idea that the earth's climate was warmer before the industrial revolution.

 

As Red says, we've been around this flagpole a dozen times (feels that way anyway). Know why? Because noone knows anything. To use a metaphor - we're peering through a keyhole, in the middle of the night, at the small, darkened foyer of a giant mansion and making assertions about what the people inside are going to do (or not do) tomorrow. We can make some educated guesses (called science). But we won't know until the people come outside and we get to know them (called history).

I'm going to say this again because it bears repeating and, for some reason, our generation seems hell-bent to forget just how fallible we humans really are.

VERY smart people once believed that:

There were gods that lived on a Mountain in Greece and ran our lives.
The world was flat. And it was hollow.
The Sun and stars orbited the Earth.
The Earth's diameter was about 1/4 it's actual size.
There was something tangible called ether.
There was something called phlogiston that caused things to be combustible.

Some of this stuff was simply debunked. Some of it was superceded - i.e. it led to another theory that built on it's work. Some of those later theories have been superceded multiple times.

The point is: science, by it's nature, evolves. It is not law except in very few and rare cases.

Why? Because humans are flawed, therefore our observations and tools are flawed, and we don't often get it right. What makes our generation so ridiculous is that we actually believe we're close to explaining everything (the singularity). Because we've made computers. And now it's only a matter of time. (Never mind that humans made computers in the first place and they break/become obsolete/slow down our intuitive processes, etc...)

What we do get from science, to our own credit, is an answer that explains our observations well enough to serve our understanding and it's growth.

Having said all that - real scientists, with a sense of their own history and some pride in their profession, should be ashamed at the ridiculous notion that these climate change discussions are anything other than whistling in the graveyard. Because the data sample is minute, flawed, and has been shamelessly manipulated.

Al Gore has done more damage to the climate change cause than even their stupid groupthink-fueled high-fiving, blinded by political ideology.

Gaia is not pleased. So I guess it's a good thing I'm not a believer.