Are the OT Pelicans believers in climate change?

[techweenie]

In a recent thread, most Pelicanheads were arguing about whether human activity was causing global warming. Some, however, were arguing that there is no global warming.

It made me want to do a poll...

[cantdrv55]

There's no "The evidence is inconclusive" option.

[pwd72s]

Primarily political BS...and ALGORE is making a lot of political noise. Hell, since he lost the election, what could be better for keeping himself in the spotlight?

I'm not saying the planet isn't warming, but I believe it to be mostly natural fluctuations that man has damned little, if anything, to do with.

For example, does everybody believe the heat and light output of the sun is a constant? Nope...it varies, in cycles. Could this have more to do with it than man?

Simply put...not enough true hard scientific evidence to back ALGORE's hysteria....but it's a good living for him.

[scottmandue]

I don't know about the scientific evidence but common sense tells me... several billion human beings + several million automobiles + thousands and thousands of factories, refineries, power plants all pumping energy out of the ground and adding to the atmosphere must have some effect.

Makes you wonder if a liberal Democrat ran through a burning building yelling FIRE some people would refuse to leave because of the source of inofrmation.

[Z-man]

Some random musings about this whole affair:

Does it really matter if a cow farts, or if I fart?

I wonder how much energy is used to heat and cool Al Gore's mansion...

Similarly, I wonder how much jet fuel Leonardo DeCaprio uses when whooshing around the globe in his private jet. But don't worry folks, he feels quite smug when he's driving around in his hybrid Prius.

Along the East coast of the USA, there is the 'El Nino' effect that comes in cycles. I believe we are currently in an 'El Nino' pattern, given the relatively light winter we've had. My point is this: too often people chose to ignore the there are weather cycles or patterns, and instead, if there is a warming trend, they turn immediately to the 'global warming' explanation.

I believe it was George Carlin who said that the earth has been around a lot longer than man has, and all it would take is a few little burps (ie: volcanic eruptions), and mother nature could essentially clear out the planet of all humans.

Global warming or not, the earth is far more resiliant than we give it credit for.

-Z-man.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Z-man
Some random musings about this whole affair:

Does it really matter if a cow farts, or if I fart?
[snip]

Global warming or not, the earth is far more resiliant than we give it credit for.

It matters if you cut down rainforest and convert farmland to feedlots for hundreds of millions of cows...

No question the environment will react to changes in climate factors like methane increases and oxygen entrapment. The point is that the earth's self-regulation activities are complex interrelationships we do not understand, and which may produce results we don't like.

Studies of ancient climate changes indicate that large amounts of frozen (hydrated) methane can be released with only small changes in water temperature, or that a relatively confined area of heat emissions can produce a reaction lasting up to 25,000 years.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by Z-man
Some random musings about this whole affair:

Does it really matter if a cow farts, or if I fart?

I wonder how much energy is used to heat and cool Al Gore's mansion...

Similarly, I wonder how much jet fuel Leonardo DeCaprio uses when whooshing around the globe in his private jet. But don't worry folks, he feels quite smug when he's driving around in his hybrid Prius.

-Z-man.

I love you Z-man but you are proving my point.

I understand the outrage that the people championing this cause are grouse consumers of fossil fuels but what does that have to do with scientific facts?

If you violently disagree with a doctor on several political points but he tells you you have cancer would you ignore him?

[Porsche virgin]

The earth is constantly changing. Did we do some of it. Probably. BUT there is no way to know because we haven't been keeping records since the earth was formed! No doctor could diagnose me with cancer by looking at me for three or four seconds!

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Z-man
Some random musings about this whole affair:

Does it really matter if a cow farts, or if I fart?

I wonder how much energy is used to heat and cool Al Gore's mansion...

Similarly, I wonder how much jet fuel Leonardo DeCaprio uses when whooshing around the globe in his private jet. But don't worry folks, he feels quite smug when he's driving around in his hybrid Prius.

Along the East coast of the USA, there is the 'El Nino' effect that comes in cycles. I believe we are currently in an 'El Nino' pattern, given the relatively light winter we've had. My point is this: too often people chose to ignore the there are weather cycles or patterns, and instead, if there is a warming trend, they turn immediately to the 'global warming' explanation.

I believe it was George Carlin who said that the earth has been around a lot longer than man has, and all it would take is a few little burps (ie: volcanic eruptions), and mother nature could essentially clear out the planet of all humans.

Global warming or not, the earth is far more resiliant than we give it credit for.

-Z-man.

Z-Man; Actually "El Nino" is a global thing driven by water temperature in the central Pacific. Because a lot of Americans live on the East Coast, and because much of the East Coast weather is driven the location of a high pressure system over the North Atlantic, our weather tends to get "whip sawed" a bit by the El Nino as it causes the high pressure system to form or not. In some respects it is a good example of how a relatively small change in one part of the world can make a big change somewhere else (Remember Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park?). But El Nino's also affect the weather in Australia (dryer if I remember), Europe and elsewhere in the world.

[RallyJon]

This is an issue of escalation:

1) I believe the overall climate can change over time.
2) I believe the climate is getting warmer right now.
3) I believe the climate warming up might change sea levels, agriculture, water supply etc in the medium to long term.
4) I believe the changes from the climate warming are bad.
5) I believe mankind as a whole should look for reasonable ways to mitigate climate change.
6) I believe we must act now to reduce emissions that I believe are changing the climate.
7) I believe we must act unilaterally to reduce emissions even if it damages our economy and lowers our standard of living.
8) I believe we true believers should force others to reduce emissions even if they're too ignorant or stubborn. We shall use misinformation, pogroms, whatever it takes. If Rob Reiner and David Geffen tell me to act, I will do as they say. Nonbelievers must be purged!

The problem is when "believing in global warming" is interpreted to mean #8, when for most so-called believers it means #5 at the most.

[notfarnow]

Funny, I was thinking about posting a similar poll earlier this week.

Interesting results so far. By reading posts, I had the distinct impression that the majority here either belived the phenomenon DIDN'T EXIST, or if it did it was a natural cycle. Apparently that's not the case. Goes to show that the loudest voices aren't necessarily the voices of the majority.

[the]

Obviously the climate changes over time, and has for millions of years, I doubt there is any real scientific dispute about that.

200 years ago, plainly, man did nothing that could have affected the climate.

Even 100 years ago, man was doing very little that could have possibly affected the global climate in any significant way.

So, has mankind managed to significantly alter the global climate in the past 100 years?

My guess is probably not.

The global climate is a big thing. 2/3 of the earth is covered by water and not even inhabited by man, and of the remaining 1/3, there is probably only heavy population and heavy industy on what, 10% of that land mass?

[Grady Clay]

"The climate is warming, and human activity is a probable contributing factor"

While it is still a "theory" the science is pretty compelling.

Best,
Grady

[DaveE]

The earth IS resiliant. I believe IT will survive. Whether we can survive on it is another question.

[RallyJon]

I have two big issues with the whole concept:

1) Shouting down/ignoring new information. That pisses me off just as much as it did when the Bush administration started trying to "tailor" science to their policies. Science should be all about examining all the evidence and not being afraid to speak the truth and/or chainge your conclusions when more evidence comes in. Right now, it would be impossible for any of the global warming scientists to change or temper their views without ruining their careers. "Peer review" is done by other like-minded advocates. I have no faith in this sham.

2) Economic costs. One word: Kyoto. Any movement that is that reckless about disregarding economic factors and our competitive position in the world vs other indistrialized nations as badly as Kyoto did can't be taken seriously. How about some REAL discussion of what can be done, not fantasyland by those who were drawing peace symbols on their notepads during Macroeconomics lectures.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by scottmandue
I love you Z-man but you are proving my point.

I understand the outrage that the people championing this cause are grouse consumers of fossil fuels but what does that have to do with scientific facts?

If you violently disagree with a doctor on several political points but he tells you you have cancer would you ignore him?

Scott - I suppose I'm part of the "there is no conclusive evidence to support either side yet" camp.

That is not to say that pollution isn't do damage to the world -- indeed it does often damage many fragile ecosystems. But I have a hard time believing folks who claim that within 5 years, this planet will be a desolate, lifeless lump of magma. To me, it is simply impossible to come to that conclusion, given our limited evidence and lack of studies.

I do my best to live an environmentally clean life. For example, I recycle, I mulch my grass and leaves in my backyard, I use very little energy for heat in the winter and AC in the summer. (Last year, I used my bedroom window AC unit a total of twice -- all other nights, I used a window fan which uses far less energy. ) I am considering getting solar panels installed on my roof even though I life in the North East where I don't benefit from solar power as much as those living in the south do. I also prefer to use a hand-saw over a power (electric or gas) chainsaw. But I'm not going to cry "the sky is falling" just because some political wash-up claims he has evidence 'proving' it.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.
-Z-man.

[Lothar]

Global Warming is being used as an excuse for new taxes, more needless government regulation and restrictions on people's personal freedoms.

It couldn't be simpler.

If it were real, we would be given real scientific evidence, rather than being asked to accept the premise on blind faith.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Lothar
If it were real, we would be given real scientific evidence, rather than being asked to accept the premise on blind faith.

LOL, that made me think of all the "Prove God exists" threads.

Humans can't provide solid proof that MAN MADE global warming exists but some here ridicule Christians who can't provide unquestionable proof of God's existence.

I guess that God must be less complex than the conditions that contribute to global warming in their minds....

[island911]

A Push poll . . . imagine that.

Where's the choice: Inconclusive (?)

[Racerbvd]

It matters if you cut down rainforest and convert farmland to feedlots for hundreds of millions of cows...

Who put out forrest fires before man did?? What happened to all the buffalo???