(30% of your final grade)
Step one: Google the words "Mars warming", "Jupiter warming", "Triton [a moon of Neptune] warming", and "Pluto warming".
Step two: Carefully study the results.
Step three: Bearing in mind that there are no SUVs on any of these cosmic bodies, compare and contrast your search results with the phenomenon, discussed here on Earth ad infinitum, of "global warming".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Very interesting, so we should call it Solar System Warming.
I also searched on "Sun Warming" and there are many, many articles studies that say that as well. It can't be that simple though, can it? The Sun is getting hotter therefore the solar system is getting hotter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
Wow, it's comforting to know that we don't have to worry about, or do anything about, global warming on earth. It's happening elsewhere, so we should give in to planetary peer pressure and stop our efforts to understand it on Earth, and trying to minimize the effects on humanity. Phew. Good to know.
It's worth pointing out that you should use the word "phenomena" in step three, since each of these examples has a completely different reason attributed to it. But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it?
Geez, I should really stop feeding the troll. But then I could never post here, could I?
Did I say *anything* about not worrying about global warming, not doing anything about it, giving in to peer pressure, or stopping efforts to understand it?
I did not.
Did I say anything about stopping efforts to minimize the effects of global warming on humanity?
I did not.
You, m@, have an apparantly incurable habit of stuffing your words into other people's mouths. It's evidently a habit of long standing, as here you have managed to stuff an entire *paragraph* into mine. Rude, if you ask me, but then, of course, you didn't.
If anything, I'm arguing the exact opposite: we need to make better efforts to understand what's happening, and stop pretending we know all there is to know about global warming. It's pretty clear we don't. We have politicians spouting all over IPCC reports before they're even published, and scientists removing themselves from the panel in disgust. While nearly everyone has come to the conclusion the climate *is* changing, the reality is we don't understand the mechanisms by which it changes, nor can we say for certain to what degree we are responsible, or whether or not we can do a damned thing about it. More study is needed. As is a whole lot less politicization.
Look, you're the one who, a month or two ago, tried to cast doubt on global warming science by noting that it's cold outside. You're the one who tried to equate climate with weather. You're the one who works so hard to ignore or misunderstand the accepted science of climate change.
If anything, I'm arguing the exact opposite: we need to make better efforts to understand what's happening, and stop pretending we know all there is to know about global warming.
And that argument completely ignores the fact that so much is known about what's happening. No, we don't know all there is to know, but we know enough to say, yes, we need to take action.
What I'm arguing is that climate change "skeptics" keep themselves willfully ignorant of the accepted science with sideshow arguments like "it's cold outside!" and "other planets are, coincidentally, experiencing warming effects too!"
And I'm arguing that what's needed is not more time sitting around, pretending that, gee whiz, we just don't know what's going on. What's needed is for us, as an affluent, wasteful society to take responsibility for our actions and start cleaning up the mess we've been making for generations.
By the way, why is an author's book being sold out at Chapters so scary for you, but the mountain of evidence for climate change doesn't bother you at all?
And you can call me a troll when I stop arguing about the issues, make the same points over and over without actually engaging in the discussion, or make comments about people rather than the issues. But calling me a troll when I've done none of those things is a baseless ad hominem attack.
In short order: I didn't "cast doubt on global warming science"--even you admitted as much when you said "I know you're not denying that global climate change exists".
I'm not one to cast doubt on science. I *am* one who frequently casts doubt on science (or anything else) being manipulated for political ends, which basically describes the Kyoto Protocol.
As for mistaking climate with weather, I learned in grade four that "climate is what you expect and weather is what you get." Climatology is a young science, and even those involved with it freely admit there is still much to learn.
There is a broad consensus that climate change is occurring. Pretending anything beyond that is counterproductive at this point.
"Cleaning up the mess we've been making"? I agree, we should be doing that. Let's start with air and water pollution, erosion and deforestation--all of which were recognized problems before it was decided that global warming was the only environmental thing worth reporting. While we're at it, yes, we should be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. "We", by the way, stands for the human race: no bye for being American, Australian, Indian or Chinese. But greenhouse gasses are far from the only villains.
As for "troll", forgive me. Sometimes I get the distinct feeling if I stated fire engines were red, you'd be right there with stats and charts to prove that most of them, these days, are in fact green. And I do wish you'd let Steyn's book go. I haven't mentioned it for months, I have no interest in pursuing that debate again, and what's more, the question will never be resolved. Chapter's isn't likely to admit that yes, they routinely ignore/underestimate demand/don't care to stock publications with a rightist bent, even if they do.
The question is not what Chapters does or does not do, but whether you are still scared. Are you? You still refuse to answer that question.
And a more accurate statement of facts would be that I would stop insisting fire engines are red when Ken Breadner claims to have seen a green one on some cold winter's day. You must understand that your position on global climate change is the minority position, in terms of the science, and that reference to your grade four studies hardly cuts the mustard. Until you accept and admit that, further discussion is fruitless.
I have pointed out some glaring errors of fact in your blog posts; you refuse to acknowledge or respond. Instead, you mischaracterise my intent, attack me personally, and dodge the actual problems with your positions yet again.
While I regret no longer seeing Dodos' and Rocketstar's posts, I will defer to NMTP's decision to keep you as a contributor, and cease to read or provide any further comment on this blog.
And good luck.
M@, if you're still around, and you're willing to give us a bit more of your time, please copy and paste this link into your browser and watch this video, courtesy Britain's Channel Four. It might open your mind a bit. It certainly did mine.
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/03/14/video-the-great-global-warming-swindle/
While I regret no longer seeing Dodos' and Rocketstar's posts, I will defer to NMTP's decision to keep you as a contributor, and cease to read or provide any further comment on this blog.
I think part of the problem, and I may be mis-charcterizing what's happening, is that I think Ken sees you as singling him out and attacking him, not engaging him in debate. I would welcome you to stay aboard and maybe you two can start over. I think it's gotten to the point where Ken is ultra defensive when you speak to him and you are ultra-snide when you speak to him. Unhealthy to say the least.
By the way, you can still read my stuff at my own personal blog :)
M@, if you're still around, and you're willing to give us a bit more of your time, please copy and paste this link into your browser and watch this video, courtesy Britain's Channel Four. It might open your mind a bit. It certainly did mine.
I would be careful with this one Ken. It has been roundly criticized for using out-dated science (and that which has been proven to be inaccurate). One of the participants has also complained that his work was mis-used and he was lied to about to about the intent of the show. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
Thanks, Peter--they do move fast, don't they? Have they utterly debunked this, the way Loose Change was utterly debunked? The thing that really bothers me isn't the opinions on either side, it's the death threats and the fact it that it's getting increasingly difficult to sift through stuff on our own.
Have they utterly debunked this...
Monibot and the guys from Real Climate (who are all climate scientists), seem to think it was a load of bull as it relied on theories that are out of date and have been debunked. My favorite part of the Monibot article is where he says that deniers claims of being "shut out" are false - being wrong isn't being shut out, it's simply being wrong.
The thing that really bothers me isn't the opinions on either side, it's the death threats and the fact it that it's getting increasingly difficult to sift through stuff on our own.
Yeah, it's all getting a little silly. To be honest, I just ignore most of it. I've made up my mind and will hedge my best that I'm right in my assessment. If I'm wrong, oh well, there are worse things to be wrong about.
[Edit: Monbiot's rebuttal is very well sourced. Still, a number of things puzzle me:
--why does it seem as if the entire solar system is heating up?
--if CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in fact the culprit behind climate change, how do we account for wildly fluctuating climate throughout history?
--related: if our contribution to said greenhouse gas emission, on a global basis, is so tiny--why are its purported effects so strong?
The strongest, most inviolate point that video makes, in my opinion, comes near the end, when it exposes the politics behind global warming hysteria. Why must everything be so polarized? Can't both sides have something valid to contribute?
--why does it seem as if the entire solar system is heating up?
Not sure. You should check out realcliamte.org for the answer. They seem to be the easiest to understand and well sourced as well.
--if CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in fact the culprit behind climate change, how do we account for wildly fluctuating climate throughout history?
Well, I know recently they found that the Arctic several million years ago was super warm and it was the result of high levels of C02. To be honest, I don't know the answer - I think there are several mechanisms which drive cliamte, but none of which seem to be responsible for this global increase.
--if CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in fact the culprit behind climate change, how do we account for wildly fluctuating climate throughout history?
It's cumulative I think. We are increasing our rates of ghg emissions each and every year (up to 3 or 4 ppm a year) and we have been doing it since the beginning of the industrial revolution. While there are natural carbon sinks in the environment, they can't keep up with the increase and there are less of them because we keep chopping them down (see Amazon Rainforest).
Why must everything be so polarized? Can't both sides have something valid to contribute?
To me it comes down to honesty - are you being honest about your desire to find the truth. I don't necessarily buy in to the catastrophic stream nor the absolute denial. As with all things, the truth is in the middle. But neither side on the extreme is willing to be honest I think.
It may not matter, but I've driven in a yellow fire engine.
Both sides claim to have evidence that's more accurate than the other side's. Both sides believe they've discredited each other. Only one side seems to want to terminate the debate, and that seems suspicious to me.
I enjoy the cool-headed writings of Canadian scientist Dr. Timothy Ball, who also appeared on The global Warming Swindle. He is a pioneer in the field of climatology, seems a logical man, and appreciates the difference between causal relationships and coincidental relationships.
Post a Comment