Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Bryan]

Let's summarize:

Global warming advocate's position: global warming is a fact; it is beyond question; no rational person would dare question it; anyone who even suggests that there MIGHT be an alternate explanation, or perhaps no warming at all, is an idiot, a Republican, watches Bill O'Reilly, voted for Bush and clubs seals for a hobby; not a single DIME should be spent on any research that might cast doubt on it; any professional who even hints that it might not take place should have their credentials stripped (this has indeed been suggested by the First Amendment conscious Weather Channel)...

Global warming skeptic's position: there may or may not be warming, it may or may not be human caused, it may or may not be bad even if it were occuring, and we should keep an open mind about the issue, and do further research, before mortgaging our lifestyles based upon the computer predictions of a bunch of previously unheard of nerds who can't predict major weather patterns in the South Atlantic one season in advance with any accuracy let alone the atmospheric behavior of the whole planet fifty years from now...

which position is unreasonable? I rest my case
the first position is NOT the one of a rational, scientific mind, it is the one of a zealot who, deep down, fears the truth

I choose the 2nd option for myself, but I am a Republican!

People tend to be multidimensional, I've learned, so I view stereotypes and labels as but a way to foster prejudice.

 

[DavidPT40]

Global warming is BAD because it has the potential to destroy our food crops. Money should be spent to determine (A) if human activities amplify it, and (B) what we can do to reduce its effects.

 

[Charlie99]

Global warming is BAD because it has the potential to destroy our food crops.

CHANGE IS BAD !!!!!!! (but not always).

Climate change has multiple effects. Some places become wetter, some places get drier. Warming up of some places will increase food crops ---- the Canadians and Russians can use a few more days in their growing season.

I would be suspicious of any study that claims to be a comprehensive study of the effects of global warming if they only find adverse effects and no beneficial effects anywhere.

 

[BTravlin]

I like to hedge my bets so I may invest in some northern Minnesota real estate, just in case.

 

[fisheyeview]

 

[ReefGuy]

Oh My God! Behind you!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

 

[DandyDon]

Dennis it has been getting warmer at the artic for 18,000 yrs. AMOF 5800 yrs ago Lake Erie was under 5000+ feet of ice ...where did all that ice go? And what anthropogenic influence caused all that ice to disappear in matter of decades? ...Can't blame man for that one.

5800 yrs ago? Was that a typo? I know that GW has been happening for millenia and some of it is natural, but I thot that was more ancient...?

 

[fisheyeview]

Oh My God! Behind you!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

 

[trigfunctions]

Global warming skeptic's position: there may or may not be warming, it may or may not be human caused, it may or may not be bad even if it were occuring, and we should keep an open mind about the issue, and do further research, before mortgaging our lifestyles ...

That is the false dichotomy that is usually portrayed by the anti-global warming folks. In no way would the US have to "mortgage our lifestyles" to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, most of the proposed changes would enhance our lifestyles - more fuel efficient cars, alternative energy sources, etc. The hysteria that our economy will collapse if we try to reduce pollution is propagated by the corporations who have something to lose - primarily the oil industry.

 

[Charlie99]

5800 yrs ago? Was that a typo? I know that GW has been happening for millenia and some of it is natural, but I thot that was more ancient...?

I don't know about the specifics of how many feet of ice at Lake Erie 5800 years ago, but the last major ice age was from 70,000 to about 10,000 years ago, with the peak amount of ice about 18-20,000 years ago. In North America that ice age is usually called the "Wisconson Glaciation".

More relevant to the current climate and projected climate change is the Medieval Warm Period back around 800-1300AD; and the "Little Ice Age" that followed. There were signficant differences in weather patterns (such as rainfall amounts) that may offer some insight to future climate changes.

What will probably matter the most is not any sort of overall warming, or any changes in ocean levels (IPCC prediciion is 7-24" rise in the next 100 years), but the changes in regional climates, and most particularly changes in rainfall patterns.