Global Warming for Dummies

[yguy]

Originally Posted by fragment

This is a pretty vague statement

Pardon me, but the failure of that statement to confirm your faith hardly makes it vague. On the contrary, it is a perfectly clear, accurate and proper admission of ignorance.

Compare it with the statement "No one knows, for sure, how many cancers are caused by smoking and how many by other factors". That's basically true, but gives an erroneous impression that there is a lack of certainty in the link between smoking and cancer.

Do I really need to explain to you how you've contradicted yourself here?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

Pardon me, but the failure of that statement to confirm your faith hardly makes it vague. On the contrary, it is a perfectly clear, accurate and proper admission of ignorance.

Global Warming is not a faith little boy, but the denial of it certainly is.

Originally Posted by yguy

Do I really need to explain to you how you've contradicted yourself here?

Please do

[yguy]

Originally Posted by fragment

I'm not sure why you think so. The claim that proxy data is unverifiable is just false,

I dare you or anyone else to back up that claim.

and the idea that any scientific claim gives government power over your life is ludicrous. A scientific claim might provide evidence in support of a policy that gives power to a government... or it might not.

True enough. After all, Hitler's anti-semitic propaganda never got any Jews killed by itself.

[Watser?]

Some day we must invite the Guiness Book of Records over, the ludicrousness of yguy's claims must be worth mentioning.

[fragment]

For the record, I have yguy on ignore. If he makes any points that anyone else would like me to respond to, repost them.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by yguy

Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

This coming from our very own fear addict who believes everything the Bush administration tells him. Comedy gold.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

I dare you or anyone else to back up that claim.

Here you are fragment.

Not that there will be much point. I think you will need the not-yet-existing shifting goalpost smilie later.

[fragment]

I should have clarified, I'm not interested in seeing yguy's posts and answering them for my own sake. I'm just saying to anyone else who thinks he has made a valid point that they'd like me to respond to that they should repost it.

But as far as verifying proxy data from tree rings and ice cores goes, anyone who wants to can go and measure more tree rings or drill more ice cores.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Naruto

Al Gore said the world is going to end?

I haven't seen Gore's schtick, but my understanding is that if we don't do something drastic NOW, it will be the end of the world "as we know it". That, to me, means overwhelming stresses upon human cultures worldwide and possible collapses of civilizations built up since the dawn of agriculture and attendant loss of a considerable portion of the human population presently on the planet.

I personally found Brian Fagan's The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization a worthwhile read for some perspective on the whole "global warming issue". Dr. Fagan is an anthropologist, not a climate scientist, but he has an abiding interest in how climate has shaped human cultures and human civilisation. For caveats, I recommend perusing his wiki listing.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I haven't seen Gore's schtick, but

The details of what someone actually says (especially in light of other things they say) matter for any such indirect quotation, summary, or broad characterization. Familiarity with those details probably a prerequisite for those purposes.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The details of what someone actually says (especially in light of other things they say) matter for any such indirect quotation, summary, or broad characterization. Familiarity with those details probably a prerequisite for those purposes.

So...Educate us as to what Gore's point is.

A summary will be fine. I'd appreciate quotes, too.

I've been reading about this for years prior to Gore climbing on his hobby horse.

[Clutch Munny]

I haven't seen the whole thing.

But in any case, it seems to me that I misunderstood your point. I took you to be summarizing Gore's view -- that the world is ending -- rather than your own. That's what I thought was unwise, given that you hadn't seen the film. If that's not what you meant, then please accept my apologies for the derail.

In any case, it seems to me that Al Gore is to Global Warming what Morgan Spurlock is to heart disease. Why should a query thread about heart disease turn into a discussion of the merits of Supersize Me?

[TomJoe]

Miss Shelby,

To some extent global climate change is an issue which has been recognized by both conservatives and liberals. The United States has a Global Climate Change Policy where they state: Climate change is a serious challenge, the scale and scope of which will require a global response.

Is there outrageous rhetoric on both sides? Yes, I would say the likelihood of that is a pretty safe bet, despite some wingbat protestations in this very thread. Pay them no mind.

What I would say is that, whether you think the world is about to reach a tipping point where there is no turning back, or that we should be able to dump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we want ... we might want to stop and think about our responsibilities as stewards of this planet. Do we do all we can do to make this a better place to live, for us, our children and our children's children? The things we can do are rather simple too: conserving energy (Energy Star compliant appliances, turn off your lights when you're not using them, recognize and eliminate vampiric energy usage, map out your day to cut down on gas consumption, and keep your cars tires properly inflated) and recycling (recycling used products and buying materials which are made from recycled products) are two of the best ways we can help achieve a lower "carbon footprint".

[yguy]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Do we do all we can do to make this a better place to live, for us, our children and our children's children?

Obviously - bearing in mind that placing ourselves under the rule of hordes of hall monitors executing draconian directives from a star chamber composed of Environmentally Enlightened Ones will accomplish precisely the opposite.

The things we can do are rather simple too: ...

What we cannot do, of course, is say with any confidence - other than that instilled by faith in authority figures - that any of it makes a damn bit of difference one way or the other.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Is there outrageous rhetoric on both sides? Yes, I would say the likelihood of that is a pretty safe bet, despite some wingbat protestations in this very thread. Pay them no mind.

Uh huh. And I'm sure you are now going to give us the examples of outrageous rhetoric from the left that Miss Shelby was talking about but failed to provide.

You are the perfect example of a centrist loon. One who thinks the truth is always in the middle. It rarely ever is. The center just moves to where the truth is.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by fragment

But as far as verifying proxy data from tree rings and ice cores goes, anyone who wants to can go and measure more tree rings or drill more ice cores.

I guess this is frag's idea of comic relief.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by fragment

I'm not sure why you think so.

I wasn't talking about your source. I was referring to your advice to be skeptical.

[lisarea]

Skepticism is great if you have the ability and the initiative to actually research a topic and make some reasonably educated assessment of its credibility, but if you can't even put forth the effort to type 'global warming' into a search engine and do even a little reading, your 'skepticism' is really just some combination of willful ignorance and disingenuous goading. Do you really think it's something that can be explained in thirty words or less on a message board to a self-professed 'dummy'?

I certainly don't understand the topic thoroughly, and I don't have the background and education that'd be required to critically review current research on the subject. What I can do is get at least a layman's understanding of the scientific community's consensus on the subject that goes beyond the irrelevant political/celebrity perspective so many ignorant people approach it from.

If you can't be bothered to put forth the incredibly minimal effort it'd take to get a little background on the subject, why should anyone else go to the trouble to try to distill it into something you might be willing and able to understand? If you had a genuine interest in understanding the subject, you would have learned a little about it and maybe asked some specific questions.

But you don't, of course.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

... we might want to stop and think about our responsibilities as stewards of this planet. Do we do all we can do to make this a better place to live, for us, our children and our children's children?

While stomping down with my own carbon footprint (playing a computer game) I was introduced to the lovely little quotation:

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

It's supposed to be a Native American saying, but I couldn't vouch for that. It sums thing up nicely though.

[Sorrel]

It does. I should remember it for my environmental economics class essay

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Do you really think it's something that can be explained in thirty words or less on a message board to a self-professed 'dummy'?

It might have more to do with this recent failure to generate controversy, hence falling back on a more tried-and-tested model.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by Dragar

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Well, they can have it back, now. Let's see if they treat it any better.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

It might have more to do with this recent failure to generate controversy, hence falling back on a more tried-and-tested model.

Exactly. In fact, I'd suggest that anyone considering investing any time and effort into educating Miss Shelby review the latter thread first.

Note how she begins the thread lauding some book's 'strong critique of feminism,' only to blithely mention that almost a month later that she's only gotten up to page 46. Based on that, I'd think that a 'strong' argument for the case for global warming might be something like this, except maybe with some sweat drops coming out of it to show that the earth is sad because of global warming:

[Clutch Munny]

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Exactly. In fact, I'd suggest that anyone considering investing any time and effort into educating Miss Shelby review the latter thread first.

Note how she begins the thread lauding some book's 'strong critique of feminism,' only to blithely mention that almost a month later that she's only gotten up to page 46.

Very good memory. And to be truthful, I haven't gotten any further in that book.

I am not trying to start a fight re: global warming. IN fact, I have admitted ignorance and am looking for answers. And thanks to those who've provided their knowledge and their links.

And besides that-- All I did was simply ASK a question. And it is a very honest question. I know NOTHING about Global Warming, so tell me in dummy layman's terms, if possible, what it is?

I had NO IDEA that mentioning Left and Right Wingnuts would set people off.

NO IDEA.