Proof of human caused global warming?

[Neo]

I'm sure we've all either watched or read Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." If you haven't then I urge you to check out what, IMO, is the best documentary to date which just so happens to be about human caused global warming.

There are two types of global warming:

1) The natural cycle of the Earth (it's what gives us ice ages for example)

2) The never before witnessed, human caused kind of which we have no historical record to compare to

What we do have is a historical record of Earth's natural cycles stored in ice which can be looked at by taking a ice core sample. What we don't have historical records of is human caused global warming because this is the first time in Earth's history that humans have created machines that emit an amazing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So what proof do we really have that our current global warming crisis is human caused and not just some cycle of our planet?

Nothing can beat Al Gore's flick IMO, but the video series by Peter Sinclair come close, especially when it comes to debunking those that say our current crisis is simply a cycle and has nothing to do with the amazing amount of CO2 we've pumped into our atmosphere:

[Nashville_maestro]

What I don't understand is how people are so adamant about denying climate change. Almost like they have a personal vendetta against it because they don't want the change. I mean some of the so called "debunks" of climate change are the equivocal of staring at a tsunami in the face coming toward you at 150mph and saying "Oh I'm just hallucinating because I haven't had anything to drink in a while."

Remember when everyone was saying that Al Gore was using all of this as propaganda because he was going to run for president in 2008?

[Neo]

I share your fatigue with this but I talk to many who are extremely adamant about them *not* being the cause of the crisis we find ourselves in. This is no 'phase' that America is going through but I will say that the countless books on 'easy' ways to save the planet simply aren't going to cut it. We need major policy change in our government and other governments around the world if we're to even slow this down. I honestly don't see that happening since there are so many adamant about it not being our fault, but I'm certainly not going to lose anything by trying.

In the end my case is even if we're not the cause of global warming (I assure you that I do not believe this, but I'm going to give in to what goes on in the heads of those that deny we're the cause), our world is going to be a much better place for having made the commitment to change the way we live. The air we breath will be cleaner, our bodies will be healthier and we will no doubt be happier.

[dpbaker]

Well, I'm one of those that thinks Al Gore is brilliant for what he's done - there is great profit in fear mongering like this and he's taking it all the way to the bank. Sorry, I think the human impact - while I DO BELIEVE THERE IS SOME - is highly overrated. Wasn't there a fear of global cooling back in the 70s?? What happened to that??

Don't get me wrong - I do think it is a good thing to go green in certain areas. A cleaner, healthier world is a desirable thing - it's how we get there, and the Nazi-like tactics of so-called environmental groups adamant about forcing their vision of change on the world. That's what "we" don't like. Change can be made, but it should be made intelligently, incrementally, and not at detriment to the economy or progress. (Far too much of this is driven by special interests to make sure idiots in all levels of government, for example, maintain worthless jobs. One fine example is CARB - the California Air Resources Board.)

Hey all for hydrogen powered cars, clean rivers, clear skies and the like, but come on, banning incandescent bulbs and big screen TVs??? So we trade power consumption for dumping mercury into the environment with those Chinese-made CFLs??? Well, O.K. - that's what "we" don't like - removal of choice. I'm paying for the power, so let me choose what I want to stick in a light socket. If I want that 60" TV, so be it! (not that I can afford one, but if I could....). I want to run my A/C in the summer to a chilly 65F?? So be it!!! Well, not for much longer thanks to PG&E and it's "smart" meters. More like invasive meters - telling us, FORCING us how to live. That's what we don't like. It goes contrary to freedom.

No, coal power is not good. But the short term answer is there )yes, I'm digressing.....) - build more nuke plants as an interim solution - satisfy power needs, no atmospheric pollution, plenty 'o' jobs to go around, something that the country, and especially California where I live, need! But no. We'd rather deny people freedom of choice, not necessarily to the benefit of anything IMHO. That's what "we" don't like. Not the same thing here as say a hybrid auto. The variety is increasing, pricing seems to be improving, and I think we'll ultimately make that transition - a good interim solution. Nobody will have a problem with driving hydrogen powered Cadillac Escalades - because they'll still be available! This is not a diminishing of choice or freedom. And so on.

[Nashville_maestro]

Well, I'm one of those that thinks Al Gore is brilliant for what he's done - there is great profit in fear mongering like this and he's taking it all the way to the bank. Sorry, I think the human impact - while I DO BELIEVE THERE IS SOME - is highly overrated. Wasn't there a fear of global cooling back in the 70s?? What happened to that??

Don't get me wrong - I do think it is a good thing to go green in certain areas. A cleaner, healthier world is a desirable thing - it's how we get there, and the Nazi-like tactics of so-called environmental groups adamant about forcing their vision of change on the world. That's what "we" don't like. Change can be made, but it should be made intelligently, incrementally, and not at detriment to the economy or progress. (Far too much of this is driven by special interests to make sure idiots in all levels of government, for example, maintain worthless jobs. One fine example is CARB - the California Air Resources Board.)

Hey all for hydrogen powered cars, clean rivers, clear skies and the like, but come on, banning incandescent bulbs and big screen TVs??? So we trade power consumption for dumping mercury into the environment with those Chinese-made CFLs??? Well, O.K. - that's what "we" don't like - removal of choice. I'm paying for the power, so let me choose what I want to stick in a light socket. If I want that 60" TV, so be it! (not that I can afford one, but if I could....). I want to run my A/C in the summer to a chilly 65F?? So be it!!! Well, not for much longer thanks to PG&E and it's "smart" meters. More like invasive meters - telling us, FORCING us how to live. That's what we don't like. It goes contrary to freedom.

No, coal power is not good. But the short term answer is there )yes, I'm digressing.....) - build more nuke plants as an interim solution - satisfy power needs, no atmospheric pollution, plenty 'o' jobs to go around, something that the country, and especially California where I live, need! But no. We'd rather deny people freedom of choice, not necessarily to the benefit of anything IMHO. That's what "we" don't like. Not the same thing here as say a hybrid auto. The variety is increasing, pricing seems to be improving, and I think we'll ultimately make that transition - a good interim solution. Nobody will have a problem with driving hydrogen powered Cadillac Escalades - because they'll still be available! This is not a diminishing of choice or freedom. And so on.

I don't really want to get into an argument here, but they're phasing out incandescent bulbs because A) they're not much cheaper than CFL's anymore and B) they use nearly 300% more electricity. CFL's are waaay outselling incandescent bulbs on the free market now anyway (I work with the Home Depot so I know).

As for the dumping mercury into the environment, you're actually supposed to recycle CFL's like you're supposed to recycle batteries. Home Depot, Lowe's, Wal Mart, and I'm sure a lot of grocery stores all have areas where you can drop off your old florescent bulbs (compact and tube) for recycling. Just take in your old busted bulb and drop it in there when you go to replace it. I don't think any more CFL's are made in China than incandescent bulbs were.... Check me on this because I could be wrong though.

Besides, CFL's are already starting to garner some competition from the next wave of lighting technology: LED. LED's use even less electricity, produce little to no heat, last much longer, and are not toxic to the environment. With time, LED technology is going to get even more efficient. Scientists are already developing LED bulbs that are 100% efficient! Meaning, there is no energy wasted in the lighting process. The only down side right now is the price. LED bulbs range anywhere from $20-$70 for one bulb.

[dpbaker]

I don't really want to get into an argument here, but they're phasing out incandescent bulbs because A) they're not much cheaper than CFL's anymore and B) they use nearly 300% more electricity. CFL's are waaay outselling incandescent bulbs on the free market now anyway (I work with the Home Depot so I know).

As for the dumping mercury into the environment, you're actually supposed to recycle CFL's like you're supposed to recycle batteries. Home Depot, Lowe's, Wal Mart, and I'm sure a lot of grocery stores all have areas where you can drop off your old florescent bulbs (compact and tube) for recycling. Just take in your old busted bulb and drop it in there when you go to replace it. I don't think any more CFL's are made in China than incandescent bulbs were.... Check me on this because I could be wrong though.

Besides, CFL's are already starting to garner some competition from the next wave of lighting technology: LED. LED's use even less electricity, produce little to no heat, last much longer, and are not toxic to the environment. With time, LED technology is going to get even more efficient. Scientists are already developing LED bulbs that are 100% efficient! Meaning, there is no energy wasted in the lighting process. The only down side right now is the price. LED bulbs range anywhere from $20-$70 for one bulb.

Correct - they will force us to use the bulbs they want, all else be damned, provided we can pinch those watts off and control people. This is not about what is better - it is about control. Personally CFLs look like crap to me. Some of them have nice hues, but nothing as warm as certain incs.

As far as recycling - yeah, sure. Some people will - a LOT of people aren't going to bother - they will end up in the landfill. And of course there is the issue half way around the world with the Chinese manufacturing, essentially unregulated, dumping what they dump into the environment. Not too green IMHO. Try to find a CFL not made in China. Incans., the ones I buy are made in the U.S.A., or in Mexico. Great!!! Pump those CFLS, screw more North Americans out of jobs.

LEDs are certainly interesting, I have a few LED flashlights (they are not as efficient as one might believe, they don't actually last that long on the batteries). Let's see if we can refine the technology to get them nice, then the Chinese will get them down to cheap.

If I'm paying for the power, I don't wanted somebody dictating to me what I can or can't shove in a light fixture. What I'd like to see is politicians that have stones enough to stand up to the more twisted, nefarious environmental lobbies, and really develop alternative and nuclear energies - then it simply won't matter what kind of bulbs we use, eh?

[Nashville_maestro]

Correct - they will force us to use the bulbs they want, all else be damned, provided we can pinch those watts off and control people. This is not about what is better - it is about control. Personally CFLs look like crap to me. Some of them have nice hues, but nothing as warm as certain incs.

As far as recycling - yeah, sure. Some people will - a LOT of people aren't going to bother - they will end up in the landfill. And of course there is the issue half way around the world with the Chinese manufacturing, essentially unregulated, dumping what they dump into the environment. Not too green IMHO. Try to find a CFL not made in China. Incans., the ones I buy are made in the U.S.A., or in Mexico. Great!!! Pump those CFLS, screw more North Americans out of jobs.

LEDs are certainly interesting, I have a few LED flashlights (they are not as efficient as one might believe, they don't actually last that long on the batteries). Let's see if we can refine the technology to get them nice, then the Chinese will get them down to cheap.

If I'm paying for the power, I don't wanted somebody dictating to me what I can or can't shove in a light fixture. What I'd like to see is politicians that have stones enough to stand up to the more twisted, nefarious environmental lobbies, and really develop alternative and nuclear energies - then it simply won't matter what kind of bulbs we use, eh?

I think that even if the government wernt phasing out the incandescent bulbs, manufacturers would be discontinuing them in the near future anyway due to slumping sales. For every pack of incandescent bulbs that are sold, 6 or 7 packs of CFL's are sold.

I completely agree with you on the fact that we need to be putting all of our eggs in the alternative energy and recycling basket. If 100% of the world's energy came from clean sources, then you're right, it wouldn't matter what bulbs we used or if our appliances had the energy star logo.

[Neo]

I'm not sure how many of you know of the videos from Peter Sinclair called Climate Denial Crock of the Week. Each week he has a new video he posts to YouTube explaining things like the 'global cooling' thoughts a few decades back. I would encourage anyone who has opposition to human caused global warming to look at the videos this guy has posted. He backs everything up with real data and not opinion.

http://www.youtube.c...er/greenman3610

Here is the video for the 'global cooling' of the 70's for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

[dpbaker]

And you have scientists in wither side of the aisle that believe it or don't - so the scientific verdict is not in, in my opinion. Then of course you have the recent email scandal for what it is worth. Believe me, there is plenty of academic fraud out there committed for various reasons. Could it be a big conspiracy to further some twisted agenda? Maybe. Is there really something to it??? Maybe. What we need to do is further the evaluations and research, and not knee-jerk in any of our actions, which humans are very good at doing.

But I guess we're all now emitting toxic gas according to the EPA. Perhaps there is a market for CO2 scrubber/rebreather packs. You know, a backpack type device, light weight that can keep one's conscience clean? I think I will invent one and get Al Gore to market it. I'm going to be a billionaire!! (Unless he steals my idea....)

[Neo]

And you have scientists in wither side of the aisle that believe it or don't - so the scientific verdict is not in, in my opinion. Then of course you have the recent email scandal for what it is worth. Believe me, there is plenty of academic fraud out there committed for various reasons. Could it be a big conspiracy to further some twisted agenda? Maybe. Is there really something to it??? Maybe. What we need to do is further the evaluations and research, and not knee-jerk in any of our actions, which humans are very good at doing.

Funny that you should mentioned the e-mail controversy. The following video covers that pretty well IMO:

[dpbaker]

And?

I personally like this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html

An Al "Capone" Gore counter balance.....

[Neo]

And?

I personally like this:

http://www.prisonpla...-criminals.html

An Al "Capone" Gore counter balance.....

So you're willing to place your entire faith that global warming is a hoax on what Al Gore does? Science is much greater than one man and unfortunately man is not without flaw. Having said that, the recent allegations over the e-mails for this matter is laughable at best and for anyone to agree with those that say it is a hoax is dismissing science altogether and in turn falling for what the media wants you to believe so it can make another quick buck.

[dpbaker]

I work in higher level academia, with a background in science. I'm quite familiar with science and its principles. And how it can be used legitimately or fraudulently.

As I've said before, the verdict is out. Hoax? Maybe. Reality? Maybe. Well, yes CLIMATE CHANGE is real. But that's not exactly new, been happening for, well, a few billion years. My perception of this issue is that it is lopsided, if you are skeptical of GW/ManMadeCC - you are a freak, and a nutcase, ostracized in many circles. But that's the radicals' approach to rational thought and process. It's their way or it's not valid. That goes for both sides, of course! Both sides need to make the case and debate it, based on scientific evidence. But it seems like the pro-GW side simply does not want to deal with the anti-GW side, or even the somewhat skeptical.

Sure, let's get pollution under control, but to go so far as to call CO2 a poison by the current idiots at the EPA, and following like lost sheep bodies like the U.N. (the blind leading the stupid.....), well, that's just dumb. I don't believe in knee-jerk reactions or making rash decisions that could seriously damage other aspects of daily life without VERY careful examination. Cap and Trade. Stupid. Pushing an agenda for sure. That's not how we should operate, but it is indeed how we operate, and believe me, politics and control has a lot to do with this issue.

If we really believe this stuff, we could be taking steps right now to cut back our CO2 emissions, develop jobs, create clean energy, all while stimulating the economy - that would be a win win. If global warming is real, we help. If it's not, it doesn't matter because what we've done hasn't been detrimental to society. But were not doing these things. We're coming up with lame schemes to punish people for their lifestyles, and simply maintaining the status quo. It's all talk, smoke, and mirrors in name of doing good.

[Southron]

USA Today ran a cartoon this month that asks the right question: "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" Why all the fuss about doing what makes sense?

[richyb83]

And in ironic fashion... after the big day in Copenhagen Hopenhagen; a monster SNOW-STORM with over 16" inches blast DC; largest December snow since 1960...hmm

[Neo]

And in ironic fashion... after the big day in Copenhagen Hopenhagen; a monster SNOW-STORM with over 16" inches blast DC; largest December snow since 1960...hmm

Ah yes, the media is eating this up since most don't bother to follow up to see if there is a valid reason for such a monster snow storm in the midst of global warming.

This can be explained far better on the following site than I could do:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/20/global-warming-copenhagen-snow-storm-blizzard-extreme-weather/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

[peaceloveunderstanding]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

They should put something in climate change legislation that taxes pets at the same level that gas-guzzling SUVs are taxed.

Now, like that topic 'Will you give up bottled water?'. I ask you, 'will you euthanize your dog?', for the good of the planet?

[NCMike1990]

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has always done great work with analyzing global temperature data and publishing papers related to climate change. The global temperature maps and graphs are updated every month as the new data comes in. They show global temperature anomaly maps, graphs and other data from the link below.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[Richlord11]

Really interesting thread and also proof in video. Probably humans are one of the biggest impulses of global warming. Basically, we look at the air polution-maybe it´s the soundest problem in the world! As far as I know, large cities themselves pose a risk to natural balance, as it is almost impossible to control the amount waste produced by factories and households and to keep all the pollutants away from people. In my hometown air pollutants in Toronto largely contribute to about 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospital admissions each year. Additionally, about 12,000 cases of childhood bronchitis and 72,000 days of asthma symptoms are believed to be caused by exposure to the air in Toronto. We need to stop these circumstances!

[the99]

It's called the IPCC report. International panel on climate change says that humans are the main source of global warming, hands down.

[NCMike1990]

Here is another great website that gives a lot of evidence of human activities being the dominant cause of recent global warming and climate change: Skeptical Science

[Dale]

Can you guys imagine how cold it would be were it not for manmade global warming ?