Proof of global warming!

[1veedo]

I read in scientific american that global temperatures also rise as a result of farming. Early civilizations clearing land started the trend. Havn't you ever heard a vegitarian twll you about how bad cows are for the evironment? Same reason. Aside from that I cant really think of any other factors though.

 

What I really dont get is why people deny global warming. The arguments made by these people have changed over time.

 

"There is no global warming"

"There is global warming but we aren't causing it" "Earth is going through a phase"

"Maybe we're causing global warming but not by much" "Volcanoes emit more C02 than us"

"Ok it's a big deal but we still cant do anything about it"

 

Why do people deny it?

[Phi for All]

Why do people deny it?

I blame it on alien technology, as described by Douglas Adams (from Wikipedia):

 

The Somebody Else's Problem field (SEP field) is a fictional technology from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "trilogy" by Douglas Adams. It is a cheaper and more practical alternative to an invisibility field.

 

An SEP field can be erected on, or projected around a bizarre and unbelievable scene so that the unconscious minds of the observers instantly abdicate responsibility for its existence, assert that it's "somebody else's problem", and therefore don't perceive it at all. The primary example of this was given in the third book Life, the Universe and Everything, when a UFO (a spaceship powered by the Bistromathic drive owned by the character Slartibartfast) landed in the middle of a cricket ground during a match, and the assembled crowd failed to notice it. Another prime example is when above ship's field is extended so that the characters fail to notice the fact that they cannot breathe or the fact that the asteroid that they are standing on does not have enough gravitational force to hold them down.

 

The SEP field requires much less energy than a normal invisibility field (a single flashlight battery can run it for over a hundred years) due to the natural propensity of humans to see things as Somebody Else's Problem. This is very close to the idea suggested by Terry Pratchett (who has often been compared to Douglas Adams) that people do not see whatever they are sure cannot be there (such as Death).

[bascule]

I read in scientific american that global temperatures also rise as a result of farming.

 

Yes land use is a first order climate forcing, and agriculture has multiple, significant impacts to the climate system. It impacts near surface water elements and the regional hydrologic cycle through the physiological and physical properties of the land cover. It influences the availability of energy and water vapor mass for moist deep convection on the local and regional scales. By creating latent heat flux discontinuities, it may induce mesoscale circulations that initiate moist deep convection. By affecting the level of stored soil moisture, moisture that is available to the vegetation during a later period, it can influence the level of convective activity within a region during a subsequent season. Spatially coherent and persistent patterns of thunderstorms play a role in the export of heat and moisture from lower to

higher latitudes - this may effect the general circulation.

 

Thus agriculture, by influencing the occurrence, location and intensity of moist deep convection, particularly in the tropics, may also influence global weather and climate.

 

What I really dont get is why people deny global warming.

 

Perhaps they're so sickened by the nattering of global warming alarmists that they've tuned out. Yet another reason why alarmism is bad: by the time we do understand the problem, people will already be sick of hearing about it.

 

"Ok it's a big deal but we still cant do anything about it"

 

If the present shifting of the Earth's radiative imbalance really poses a threat, then eventually we're going to have to artificially reverse the course of the natural cycle.

 

There isn't much we can do about it but continue to research the problem. Our biggest problem right now is that we don't understand the issue because we don't have skillful multi-decadal planetary climate models.

 

At any rate, Kyoto is an expensive waste and will not solve the problem. The estimated net savings in increased mean planetary surface temperatures are BELOW the precision with which we can measure it (0.07°C)

[Pangloss]

I read in scientific american that global temperatures also rise as a result of farming. Early civilizations clearing land started the trend. Havn't you ever heard a vegitarian twll you about how bad cows are for the evironment? Same reason. Aside from that I cant really think of any other factors though.

 

What I really dont get is why people deny global warming. The arguments made by these people have changed over time.

 

"There is no global warming"

"There is global warming but we aren't causing it" "Earth is going through a phase"

"Maybe we're causing global warming but not by much" "Volcanoes emit more C02 than us"

"Ok it's a big deal but we still cant do anything about it"

 

Why do people deny it?

 

 

This is a popular component in the ongoing effort to demonize anybody who does not support the global warming position 100%. The implication is that anybody who asks any questions any aspect of the program must be a "global warming denier". Let me show you something:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22global+warming+deniers%22&btnG=Google+Search

(That's 558 hits on the completely intact phrase "global warming deniers". It does not include variations on the theme.)

 

Here's a blog entry using the phrase that was actually written by the Editor in Chief of Scientific American magazine' date=' John Rennie:

http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/01/the_naked_truth.html

 

And he's not talking about people who flat-out deny that it could possibly be happening. Oh no. He's talking about people who are "snippily arguing". That's right -- the editor in chief of Scientific American believes that if you question or inquire about global warming, you are a [i']Global Warming Denier[/i].

 

 

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. There is no group of people, no collection of individuals, there are no organizations, that are more opposed to free speech, personal liberty and individual choice than the very bastion of self-proclaimed defenders of those very things: the far left wing of American politics. It's their way or the highway, every bit as much as it is with the far right of American politics.

 

 

So my question is this: Rather than ask "why people deny", perhaps you should really be asking why any sane person would label objective questioning and intelligent inquiry with a dirty word like "deny".

[bascule]

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. There is no group of people, no collection of individuals, there are no organizations, that are more opposed to free speech, personal liberty and individual choice than the very bastion of self-proclaimed defenders of those very things: the far left wing of American politics.[/i'] It's their way or the highway, every bit as much as it is with the far right of American politics.

 

I'm a pretty extreme liberal, and I don't fit into your cookie cutter composition fallacy group Of course I'm also a libertarian who supports (and practices) gun rights, etc.

 

But I agree overall with what you're saying... there are people who don't rationally pick and choose the planks of their political platform (to the point that they don't mash up with the major parties) and instead just get themselves into groups where they re-enforce and spread their own collective group beliefs without a careful consideration of each of them.