Another 4 to 6 inches of global warming forecast for today!

bravenrace wrote: I just wonder why most of you people that are so convinced that man is killing the earth post jokes and cartoons instead of intelligent and factual statements that support your viewpoint. I'm open to the idea that man has had a negative effect on climate, but have yet to find anyone on that side of the debate that can do anything but say that anyone that doesn't believe them is an idiot. That's not how you convince people to think your way.

It's funny that you say that on a thread that pokes fun of climate change. There are hundreds, probably thousands of reports and documents that support climate change and how our need to pump carbons into the air are a huge part of it. But because AM radio (largely supported by the industries responsible for pollution) says otherwise, "you people" decided it is a farce.

And because last time this stupid argument came up it ended in a lock...IBTL

I'm not interested in convincing people to think my way...

cone junky seems to forget all the droughts and dustbowls and extreme winters and summers early settlers exploring the west had to deal with... You know, before there were carbons to be pumped and am radio.

racerfink wrote: cone junky seems to forget all the droughts and dustbowls and extreme winters and summers early settlers exploring the west had to deal with... You know, before there were carbons to be pumped and am radio.

I see, so the "it's cold right now" logic is sound, but "it's hot and dry" logic is not legit. Gotcha.

And the dustbowl was proven long ago to be manmade due to improper land use and farming.

I love the denial from the other side.

I love this community because it has such a wide variety of people with expertise in nearly every field of human endeavor. I never realized that the 3% of scientist who do not think man has affected the environment all post here!

bravenrace wrote: I just wonder why most of you people that are so convinced that man is killing the earth post jokes and cartoons instead of intelligent and factual statements that support your viewpoint.

There's plenty written on it. I actually see the "it's a fabrication" side as being more prone to the sound bites and cartoons, but I think that's substantially a symptom of the way dialog has gone at this point, as opposed to one side or the other being the kings of the quip. Both sides do some of it, and that's the part most visible/memorable to people on the other side. Doesn't do much for the conversation, but with each side so frustrated with the other, I don't see any end to poking fun as a vent.

The reason we have this thread does make me regret that the original research didn't spend more time with a PR firm to make sure it didn't get named something that would end up being a distraction later. And that's an irony.

bravenrace wrote: I'm open to the idea that man has had a negative effect on climate, but have yet to find anyone on that side of the debate that can do anything but say that anyone that doesn't believe them is an idiot. That's not how you convince people to think your way.

My impression, if I may be so bold, is that when this comes up, it sounds like you're open to concrete proof that we can expect X% of increased energy in the global system, Y% of it due to human factors, and having a cost of $Z over the next decade, with an AA% probability of climatic issues which cause problems money can't fix.

My concern is that we'll be in dire straits long before measurements can be so precise.

And while I agree that you have a valid point about rushing things through, the general stance on the side of the fence you appear to be mostly on is that we need do nothing at all for now. I would argue that the conservative, safe approach at this point is to be making firm, considered movement toward less pollution, renewable energy, etc... If we don't do it too stupidly, there isn't really a downside. It's really kind of a "let's move toward stopping E36 M3ing where we eat" kind of movement. The panic level needed may be arguable, but the idea that we shouldn't be working meaningfully toward that end now is, in my opinion, without merit.

That's my two cents, intended as a respectful response. I'm almost certainly overstating the specificity of proof that you'd like, but I think the gist is close? I think my opinion of how to proceed in the absence of certainty is really the most salient point.

Well put.

Lesley wrote: I'm not interested in convincing people to think my way...

I detest trying to do so, and I hate conflict, but I live here... And sometimes stuff matters. And once in a great while, public sentiment influences our trajectory.

I keep trying to work out a succinct message I can drop into threads that basically means "please don't count me as silent and thus in tacit agreement."

Cone_Junkie wrote: And the dustbowl was proven long ago to be manmade due to improper land use and farming.

The dustbowl was caused by improper tillage, but that was mainly due to not knowing at that point. Most of the farmers had settled out there in a wetter than usual cycle, so they didn't know about the cycles or drought potential at that time. Just wait, it'll happen again in Iowa this next time.....those idiots don't have the climate to produce 200+bu/ac corn indefinitely, and their aquifer cannot support that either.

I thought seeing all the dirt mounds along old tree lines from the dust bowl was pretty cool in Kansas/Oklahoma when I was out there 2 years ago.

I am completely aware human beings might and most likely are having negative impacts on the world around us. I fully and steadfastly hold a core belief we had ought to be good stewards of our environment.

I also strongly believe a political play to grab power based on some far fetched notions of "save de erf" is going to do a heck of a lot more harm than good.

Ransom wrote:

Lesley wrote: I'm not interested in convincing people to think my way...

I detest trying to do so, and I hate conflict, but I live here... And sometimes stuff matters. And once in a great while, public sentiment influences our trajectory. I keep trying to work out a succinct message I can drop into threads that basically means "please don't count me as silent and thus in tacit agreement."

I agree. Anyone who is interested in a thoughtful analysis of our history, impact on the planet, and tendency to repeat the mistakes that are ultimately, our downfall... should read Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress".

Here's a piece on the history of Easter Island, illustrating how unlimited consumption and denial eventually destroyed its inhabitants:

http://commonground.ca/2010/10/foolsparadise-the-hungry-giants-of-easter-island/

In reply to bravenrace:

I'm sure you would read/watch them with the same open mind you have when you ignore all the other documents on climate change.

But I'll humor you and give you a link to an excellent Ken Burns documentary- http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/films/the-dust-bowl

aircooled wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: It was global warming until it was shown to be false. It became "global climate change" about 7 years ago....

No.... it's still global warming. They just changed the "standard" name to Climate Change because most people (which is obviously true) could not relate to how an average increase in global temperature would do anything but make everything hotter all the time. More heat = more energy. More energy = more "weather". The specifics of the theory predict More Extreme weather. That is, if it's cold, it's colder, if it's warm, warmer, dry, dryer etc. The current somewhat extreme weather would be an example of that. I would of course NOT suggest that it would be in anyway proof of it actually happening (my opinion). If it is a consistent trend over a large number of years, then maybe you start to consider it. BTW - I hate to "flounder up" the topic, but the whole "it's cold, ha, global warming" thing is getting a bit old. It really just makes the person saying that look a bit ignorant of the subject.

Aren't the polar ice caps like... way larger than they have been, right now/

Lesley wrote: We've got mountains of snow here. Every parking lot in the city looks like this, the Home Depot around the corner is a sea of foothills.

I want to go play on them in my Jeep.

Ransom wrote: And while I agree that you have a valid point about rushing things through, the *general* stance on the side of the fence you appear to be mostly on is that we need do nothing at all for now. I would argue that the conservative, safe approach at this point is to be making firm, considered movement toward less pollution, renewable energy, etc... If we don't do it too stupidly, there isn't really a downside. It's really kind of a "let's move toward stopping E36 M3ing where we eat" kind of movement. The panic level needed may be arguable, but the idea that we shouldn't be working meaningfully toward that end now is, in my opinion, without merit.

I agree with you, and I think my prior posts support that. But I also believe that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion by people like Al Gore, who IMO did nothing good to further the worlds understanding of climate change, and managed to increase his net worth by 10 times doing it. But in general I react negatively to scare tactics unless I have definitive proof, and I've still not seen enough evidence to convince me of that.

Cone_Junkie wrote: In reply to bravenrace: I'm sure you would read/watch them with the same open mind you have when you ignore all the other documents on climate change. But I'll humor you and give you a link to an excellent Ken Burns documentary- http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/films/the-dust-bowl

I didn't disagree about the dust bowl. And I don't ignore anything. Except you now.

bravenrace wrote: ....I didn't even disagree about the dust bowl. And I don't ignore anything. Except you now.

You did post, then delete, something that implied that though. It is what I thought you meant also.

Thus his confusion.

bravenrace wrote:

Cone_Junkie wrote: In reply to bravenrace: I'm sure you would read/watch them with the same open mind you have when you ignore all the other documents on climate change. But I'll humor you and give you a link to an excellent Ken Burns documentary- http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/films/the-dust-bowl

I didn't even disagree about the dust bowl. And I don't ignore anything. Except you now.

Nice ninja edit on your post where you specifically wanted me to give proof of the dustbowl. You're a class act and great at denial. Ignore away

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

You are obviously confusing me with someone else. I did no edit and I never asked for proof about the dust bowl.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

aircooled wrote:

bravenrace wrote: ....I didn't even disagree about the dust bowl. And I don't ignore anything. Except you now.

You did post, then delete, something that implied that though. It is what I thought you meant also. Thus his confusion.

I better quote that before more shenanigans because I'm not the only one that saw it. Again Braverence, you are a class act. Please continue to ignore...

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

Uhhh, just a heads up, it was racerfink who commented on the dustbowls.....first mention of them in this thread.

Correct, but Braverence said something to the effect of "Again you post with no proof to back it up and why are we arguing on a race car forum of all places." My reply was directly to that post, hence the "In Reply to Braverence" on my post.

Wow.

Anyway, the way I see it is the climate has always been cyclical, as is the carbon dioxide and O2 levels in the atmosphere. All the evidence that's currently available does NOT conclusively prove that we humans are truly wrecking it.

That does NOT mean we should foul our only nest! Regardless of global.warming, climate change or whatever's the term du jour, we DO need to clean up our act. That's how to appeal to me and get my support. I bet a whole lot of people feel the same way.