Originally Posted by Naomilla2.0
It is not something that started with the advent of SUVs or mcmansions. What many fail to recognize on both alarmist and denialist camps is that the earth's atmosphere began to get contaminated with the advent of Industrial Revolution. Global Warming is a result of at least three centuries of emissions. Unfortunately, there is no consistent recordkeeping of weather that goes that far back so there is no way of scientifically quantifying the changes in climate brought on by increasing human reliance on combustion.
On the other hand, studying the polar ice caps, scientists can date the ice strata much like that in geology. Starting about 17th century, they could see evidences of atmospheric pollution trapped in ice formation (soots and other products of combustion).
Our lives are too short to discern in our lifetime if the climate inconsistency we're experiencing is just one of those cyclical trends or if it is something that is getting more and more off-kilter. Unfortunately, I think it is the latter case.
Ecosystem and nature are robust, but it only takes a few nudges to steer anything off course - think of a very large and heavy spinning top: it is difficult to bring it to a complete stop, but it does not take much to make it wobble off axis. I tend to see global warming as such - the global climate is increasingly becoming extreme.
A flat-out denial is irresponsible, but being alarmist is impractical. Personally, I do within reasonable bounds what I can do to repect the environment - separate the trash, use low-phosphor detergents, CFL lights whereever I can and instead of cranking up the heat or A/C, we opt to put on additional layer or invest in a window fan and use strategic ventilation (in the summer, once I get the entire house to begin thermosyphoning, AC is hardly necessary as there is always a pleasant airflow in the house).
Mitch, you are intelligent person, but sometimes you surprise me with such adamant convictions and outright rejection of opposing ideas, like your decision to not vaccinate your daughter (which I respect but cannot agree with your reasoning - too small a data you base your decision upon comparing with only the kids you know (whereas there are millions of kids who get vaccinated who are just as healthy or healthier as you claim your daughter to be) - much in the way you accuse Global Warming advocates who base their ideas on fantasy).
Okay, since you goaded me by the loose accusation that my opinions are not founded in fact, here goes:
There are 2 scientists that continually get 'shouted down' because, they not only believe that GW is a crock as it's presented, but they offer scientific evidence and views to support their findings. These 2 scientists are Richard Alley, Penn State Glaciologist, and John Christy, University of Alabama Huntsville Climatologist. They both assert that climatic changes have been occurring for thousands of years, many of these changes were proven through Glaciology (air samples taken from glacier core samples over 10,000 years old!), long before emissions come into the picture. Google their research because you can read and absorb much quicker than I can paste and post.
My question is this: If I'm to be ridiculed for being so quick to dismiss what I believe to be 'Crockery', why are those such as yourself, so ready to embrace Global Warming theories with such ease? No one can expect such recent data to be even close to proving anything. These same scientists who embrace this 'nonsense' were the same scientists who predicted a much worse hurricane season in 2006 than in 2005 but you see what happened. Nothing. Not even 1 major storm made landfall.
As for the vaccine thing: I can't believe that you would be so ready to pummel me over the head over something that you obviously know very little about. In 1992, I was studying to become a naturopathic physician. Part of this study required immunology and lots of it. I studied related courses up until 1999, when it became obvious the world wasn't ready to embrace less intrusive and economical means of medical treatment (One such local person who was studying the same time I was got her ND license after graduation and went into practice. She was straightway harassed into closure by medical professionals AND the FDA. She is now practicing on a limited basis with a chiropractor. I got the message). It is through these studies that my wife and I made our decision. She's had no food allergies (caused by media that vaccines are processed with such as eggs), no high fevers and sickness, no mysterious rashes, RSV, ear infections (no doubt caused by DPT and other protein based shots) or chronic sniffles, projectile vomiting. Some of these ailments have affected ALL of our nieces and nephews. Fortunately, only one has a food allergy (milk). The worst vaccine related injury is autism and luckily, none have been diagnosed with this. Doctors and some people would call this 'anecdotal' evidence. It would be if it weren't for the fact that we have contact with many parents of children, like ourselves, who will also attest to the fact that their children are also free of these vaccine related illnesses. It cannot be a mere coincidence. Our pediatrician respects us and has not even mentioned it to us.
Now back to the Global warming thing. All evidence presented so far, has been anecdotal. Climate occurances are deemed a manmade cause because this is what they want to see, not necessarily what is the truth. Those who offer opposing views or evidences are not allowed to present them on the same forum as the alarmists do. So that's why it seems there are so many scientists embracing GW. It is the 'in' thing to do, it gets them attention, gives them power and it gets them research money to squander and pillage to their heart's desire! No need to look any further than the Oscars to see that this has become a cult in our society.
I'm for cleaner air for obvious reasons. It's easier to breath and makes life less difficult. I am thankful for the efforts that some environmentalists have done to achieve goals of cleaner emissions and cleaner rivers and streams. But promoting a fantastical theory based on little or no facts, so specific ones can gain control of the everyday behavior of each of us, that's where I draw the line and will not stand for it. Study climatology and meteorology. Find out what lightening does when it strikes. As for the CO2 BS, this is tree and plant food, which this planet has plenty of. The more CO2 emitted, the more oxygen that is produced for more people to survive. The finer details, sometimes, get lost in the heat of discussions.