Is Man-Made Global Warming A Thing?

Discussion in 'The Thinking Cap' started by AxelTheGreatest, Oct 8, 2016.

Tags:
  1. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I had a lil' discussion with one of my best friends last friday about this subject. He is a, well, climate-freak and he stated that climate change and climate problems are the biggest problems to solve for humanity in the coming century. He didn't respond on my argument that policies made to counter climate problems only have effect when they are global solutions, otherwise you will simply destroy your country's export, nor did he answer me when I asked him what his solution was. He just stubbornly stated that it was the worlds biggest problem and that I am a fool for not seeing it, and that I'm not willing to solve it.

    Now, back to the title. The evidence for climate change seems to be as thin as paper to me - or maybe I am looking at the wrong sources. The only real 'evidence' that I ever found, and to which teachers at my school constantly refer to when adressing this subject, is a pair of graphs in which the amount of carbon dioxide and the average global temperature are shown rising explosively since the industrial revolution.

    What is your opinion on this? Where are the facts? Please, enlighten me.
     
  2. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,656
    Location:
    Germany
    Because it's true. Climate change is infact the biggest danger to worlds peace in the upcomming future. Look at all the international sources I'll provide on the buttom of my post.

    From an economical standpoint, environmental regulations will always lessen economic growth. The question that remains though is if pure economic growth is what we only want and need. To answer that question I'll begin to say I disagree with your sentiment about global solutions being the only working method. You are right that if obviously a country let's say Togo reduces its emissions drastically, it won't matter much since Shanghai probably produces more emissions that they do. But that's not the whole picture of the problem. If nobody regulates, nothing will change. If nothing changes, humanity is sooner or later doomed or at least heavily crippled. Same about pollution in your hometown. If nobody uses the public trashcans, the town will remain dirty. So if only one person maybe changes his mind to actually use these, change may occure. Even if it's a slow and long lasting process, it'll be the first domino to fall. So by saying "destroying your conutry's export" you make it seem like climate change regulations are a death sentence for staying competetive on the global market.

    Some nations have had very ambitious regulation goals since the Kyoto protocol, where many countries also suceeded and some unfortunately failed. Obviously, mostly stable industrialized countries can afford to regulate consequently. Countries like Brazil, China and India are emerging markets, so it's no wonder their emissions and what not are rising. Yet, it doesn't have to rise as exponentially as first suspected. India for example set a world record for planting trees to battle these effects. source That's the first step in the direction of a better world.
    Because you would be considered a fool in most part of the world. Except for some Americans, I've never seen a person actually denying climate change. And looking at it objectively, ask yourself why would so many countries agree to world wide international agreements to find solutions for the climate change problem if everything was just a hoax?


    So now to the actual topic.
    NASA on climate change: A very general, yet in depth explination of climate change providing sources of the materials on the buttom of the webpage. There you can see correlations between industrialization and global warming as the first big indication of legit anthropoligc climate change.
    Meta analysis of scientists consensus of climate change: Here we see a rather complicated analysis I spare to explain. If you are interested, go through it else you can get from this paper that around 97% of all climatologist and scientist specified in these fields are convinced of climate change.

    I now realize most of my old climate change bookmarks are errors or moved their websites.

    But do you understand the concept of the greenhouse effect? You state evidence is thin as paper, yet you bring the biggest and most obvious evidence up. It's simple physics and chemistry, really. And a hotter climate changes our ecosystems drastically which lead to heavy problems and there we have our climate change is bad idea from.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Feanor

    Feanor Member Liaison Officer Site Staff

    Online
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    28,103
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    I mean, there is literally nothing of intellectual merit to discuss. Climate change is real. It always has been. Even before humans were around. Questioning that is lunacy or religion. Even if you narrow the scope to manmade climate change, questioning it is just silly. It's happening. Should I pub this, or do you guys actually want to discuss this?
     
    • This This x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  4. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    You are right, I should have formulated it differently.
    "Is man-made global warming real?"

    Edit: full response coming tomorrow, GG
     
  5. Ordo

    Ordo Lore Judge

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
     
  6. FrozenGrip

    FrozenGrip "The Mob"

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,532
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Global warming is a natural process which we are just speeding up. It will happen eventually regardless of what we do.
     
  7. Kalthramis

    Kalthramis Needs His Hand Held

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,395
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U Esse
    Home Page:
    I think Inferous basically hit this nail on the head with a supersledge. I can't imagine anyone with any critical thinking capabilities would think global warming is a hoax, and ergo, sort of kills this thread
     
  8. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,474
    Location:
    Zealand, Denmark
    He is kinda right though, it's pointless to regulate.

    What need to happen is people need to die in the tens of millions. Maybe even in the hundred of millions. Before the world will really wake up. I don't think it's likely it can be stopped before these climate changes start hurting our economies or another more profitable alternative for energy is invented.

    A viable alternative for energy needs to be developed. A realistic step would be to utilize nuclear fusion better on a global scale for everyone and everything. Also making all transports run on electricity. Which is already happening with cars.

    A theoretic solution could be if everyone went vegan, but that's impossible and can never happen. But we could all easily reduce our meat consumption, which would help.
     
    • Illiterate Illiterate x 1
  9. Ordo

    Ordo Lore Judge

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    I'm afraid that a massive migration wave from Middle East (In millions) is what it will take for Western countries to wake up.
    I mean its mostly already here its just that we don't want to invest money into transition from fossil fuels. Denmark is lucky with its position and even now its starting to use renewables significantly.
    Exactly, beef consumption is producing massive CO2 emissions, GMO's are clearly the answer.
     
  10. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    My responses.
    You are talking about a prisoner's dilemma here. "In enviromental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate-change. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The immediate benefit to an individual country to maintain current behavior is perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to all countries if behavior was changed, therefore explaining the impasse concerning climate-change in 2007." (Source: Wikipedia). When seeing this problem as a PD, it is crystal clear why nothing will change, as the individual interest differentiates from global interest; meaning that they won't choose for cooperation unless something (or someone) forces them to cooperate. Which is exactly what I'm talking about: a global solution for (potential) global warming.
    This is basic economy knowledge. When increasing government intervention in the economy, for example by taxing the manufacturers of non-electric cars, businesses will look for better comparative advantages in countries like China (with far less enviromental policies) where they can produce their products for a lower cost price, which will decrease the employment rate in the US. This is all explained by the so-called Flying Geese Model, which explains the "subsequent relocation process of industries from advanced to developing countries". Find some more information about it here: http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum/module/prsp/FGeese.htm .
    Which was never ratified by the US. Sounds like a huge succes.
    While in countries like Indonesia, Nigeria and Brazil, the deforestation process continues. ( https://news.mongabay.com/2005/11/world-deforestation-rates-and-forest-cover-statistics-2000-2005/ ) India planting trees is like a drop in the ocean: it solves absolutely nothing when looking at the bigger picture.
    I changed the title to 'man-made global warming' as it suited my question better. I don't deny climate change, I just want to see it in perspective and think only global solutions can be able to solve it, as I explained in the points above.
    The 97% theory is flawed, as explained here by Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ ,here by the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 and here by the National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
    I do understand the concept of the greenhouse effect, of course. And while both the CO2 emissions and the global temperature seem to have risen (although the latter one is disputed, for example here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/t...g-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-study-finds/.), that doesn't immediately say that there is a causality between these two. Once again, I'm not a biology or chemistry expert, I'm just looking for the truth.
     
  11. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,656
    Location:
    Germany
    Germany already decided to ban new licensed fossil fueled cars by 2030. That decision is no final and way too ambitious in my opinion though.

    I think you don't understand what climate change agreements like the Kyoto Protocol actuall try to archieve. Obviously, there is no direct solution to climate change like a total ban of emissions and live emission free within the next year. No nation will afford to lower their emissions and lower their peoples standard of living.

    In the spoiler below you can see the emission targets of so called "Annex B parties with binding targets in the second period". Lesser developed countries are obviously permitted to have raise of emissions, yet those regulations are made for a more efficient way. From todays standards no country has to start industralizing their country like countries did in 1880. And even more obvious, only countries that can afford to regulate obviously do.
    [​IMG]

    But I do agree if the two biggest emission producers do not step up their emission output regulations, those targets from Kyoto Protocol and Paris agreement will go partly unnoticed. Looking at you USA and China.

    Interventionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's a question of economics and not climate change. But what you describe here is the basic concept of globalisation. Companies have the free right to move production and outsource other countries in a free market. That's the libertarian liberal market for you and since protectionism is a big nono to these people it's hypocritical to think outsorcing and moving production should be prevented. And the whole concept of globalisation is so complexe and diverse, it's again another topic to discuss for another time. I'll just say, saying climate change regulations are the ultimate reason for companies to move production abroad is laughable.

    And this Flying Geese Model is from Wikipedia rather a very spicific economic development model of Japan and sorrounding SEA countries. I'd prefer to look at the model of fourastié. It simply describes the general econimical development of countries inbetween their economical sectors. It's just natural to have a decreasing secondary sector in highly developed countries.

    Yea, too bad the world doesn't revolve around the US. I'll again say at this point just because one doesn't, doesn't mean others can't.

    Planting 50million trees a day is a drop in the ocean? I think a better mataphor to compare this is going to vote. You are a single person from millions who can vote. Your single vote won't matter much, right? So why do I not just stay at home since my vote is like 0,000001% of the total outcome.

    Just because many continue the deforastation process doesn't mean it diminshes another nations effort to go against it. Your whole why bother trying argument is one of the prime reasons people in the future will look back at today and say they fucked up.

    You got Feanor'd about climate change.
    But when already talking about climate change, people obviously refer to the anthropogenic climate change. Your edited title even asks if it's a thing and yes man it is a thing. Sources were posted all over above. Anthropogenic climate change deniers are usually nutjobs who go by the "but muh economical freedom" phrase.

    Your sources say they are flawed, my sources say it's true what do we do now? And also I can't read the Wall Street Journal and Forbes articles. But hey, it already starts promising in the Wall Street Journals article./s

    And I have to sigh here, the one article that works states that "97% of ALL SCIENTISTS CONSENSUS" is a myth. Obviously it is, because generalizing scientists is already dumb as fuck. 97% of scientists specialized in these fields like climatologist are saying so. Look at my post what I said. I honestly don't care if secretary of state Kerry generalized the term scientists or if it was taken out of context. I didn't say it and that's what is important.

    What I posted was a meta analysis from studies from all over the world.


    Dude, this source looks like the most tabloidish pro-repuiblican website I've ever seen. I'd recommend you from not using it anymore.
    So you are saying global temperatures have risen can be disputed? Do you understand the concept of climate and how it is meassured? Over the last decade we had each year a new world record in global temperature. Of course, when looking neutrally at the rise of average global temperature you look for causes. And that's where scientists in the undisputed majority agree that it's caused by the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    An easy source to understand the process. CO2 and other greenhouse increasing gases are emitted heavily since industrialization. These gases are lighter than most of our atmoshpere mixture of air. Shortwaved impact earth, heat it up and longwaved sunrays inform of light energy will be emitted back. Now when you have an atmosphere with a higher percentage of CO2 these rays will be reflected back to earth and this effect will be repeated. The logical consequence is it will get warmer. Why would anybody but lobbyists from companies emitting huge masses of these gases be against this concept?
     
  12. ABDeL

    ABDeL
    Diplo Guard
    Our Creator Site Advisor

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,273
    Actually, a person with critical thinking abilities would be able to tell that:
    1. Several well-known scientific organizations, such as NASA and the Climate Research Unit, have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers to make "global warming" seem worse than it actually is. This does not exactly inspire the sort of confidence we would have in our scientists to report their observations and finding in a way that is free of experimental bias.
    2. Statistics, such as the 97% consensus numbers have been refuted.
    3. The phrase "Global Warming" has been retired and replaced with "Climate Change", probably in response to the inability of scientists to explain the global cooling that the world experienced from the 1940s to the 1980s. Whats important to note during this period is that its a period of industrialization where CO2 levels rose but temperatures fell to the point where scientists at the time thought we were entering a new ice age.
    I'm not an expert by any means and my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. But you should automatically distrust any scientist who wants to push an environmental agenda based on the hysteria created around climate change. Policy should be evidence based, and if that evidence doesn't come from bias-free and impartial organizations, then the only judgement we can make is that a segment of the elite have a stake in the manufactured hysteria around climate change. This also may explain why so many countries are trying to throw away free speech protections for climate change denial.

    Do I think the climate is changing? Yes. Do I think its human influenced? Not sure yet. Is it as bad as everyone is making it out to be? They wouldn't have to fudge the data if this were true.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,474
    Location:
    Zealand, Denmark
    Actually the global temperature hasn't risen that much, while CO2 in the atmosphere has sky rocketed. Scientist was expecting it to increase a lot more. The oceans have absorbed most of the energy and have gotten a lot hotter. Much more compared to the atmosphere.

    Which is obviously not a better outcome.
     
  14. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,746
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BC BUD
    Yes due to ocean temperatures rising the whales have to live further north to stop climate change.

    Jokes aside, climate change is real, albeit it isn't as fast as many scientists proclaim it to be, there was a film that was about a guy that filmed the melting icecaps in the Arctic. It portrays how climate change is accelerating it's process.



    Even though Abdel could call it a ingredient to media hysteria it still shows a change in climate is happening faster.
     
  15. EagleMan

    EagleMan
    Diplo Guard
    Administrator Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    17,173
    Man-made climate change is real, and it's already too late to stop it. If the world took immediate, organized action to control it, we could prevent a lot of the damage. But it's already coming, and based on current political will, by the time any substantial action is taken, it will already be decades too late.

    The world isn't going to end because of it, but there will be massive political upheaval and instability as climate change quite literally changes climates and disrupts economies and displaces populaces. The Syrian refugee crisis is just a training tutorial for what's to come in the following decades.

    Places like the U.S. and Canada won't be harmed too much though, if anything Canada will probably benefit a lot from the increased warming. The Southwest U.S. will become even more of a desert though, and weather events such as hurricanes will become more frequent and severe. But there aren't going to be boats of Africans heading for America (unless we let them) - they're all going to flee to Europe. The population of Africa is set to soar over the coming century and they'll probably be the worst hit by climate change.
     
  16. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    572
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Nice fact-free doomsaying.
    "The end is coming!"
    Mind backing it up?
     
  17. FrozenGrip

    FrozenGrip "The Mob"

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,532
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Wasn't there also that random warm period during the Medieval ages which a lot of scientists seem to ignore?
     
    • Unfunny Unfunny x 1
  18. EagleMan

    EagleMan
    Diplo Guard
    Administrator Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    17,173
    It depends - do you want to read through scientific papers? I also literally said the world isn't going to end.
     
  19. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,474
    Location:
    Zealand, Denmark
    Hopefully, the current refugee crisis will set a stop to future invasions caused by climate change.
     
  20. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,656
    Location:
    Germany
    There were warm and cold periods over the long span of time of our earth. Huamnity afterall managed to create civilizsations literally because of natural climate change ending the latest big cold periods.

    There are many complexe reasons for such, earth orbiting differently around the sun in a different angle, natural vulcanos causing huge cold periods and much more scientific backed causes. I can't believe people are actually denying science.
     
Affiliates
Make Me Host  HiveWorkshop  Brigand's Haven  BlizzMod  Gamer's Isle  Union of Strategists