CO2 a pollutant?

[glaber]

Originally Posted by JEV3

Conservation is all fine with me. We have the controlling stake over our planet so its our responsibility to take care of it. However, I'm uncomfortable with going too far out of our way to meddle with the natural climate process.

Limiting our current pollution within reason makes sense, but we know that there are also natural pollutants. We can't really stop them, but if we tried to offset them, then we may end up just adding another confounding variable to the equation and making it that much harder to react to the elements.

I think we're better off preparing for some of the possible effects of overall climate change than coming up with a scheme that might do more harm than good anyway. Build stronger buildings, elevate new developments more over water level, and have better systems for dealing with heavy snow and et cetera.

Now this I can get behind.

[Fawfulfan]

Although I still say it is within our power to fix global warming through light reflection, I think it is a great idea to construct mechanisms to prepare for the effects. Ideally, we should do all three in moderation--conserve resources, prepare for the worst, and try to slightly increase the Earth's albedo.

[Rob]

Uh, 'fix' a problem that really isn't a problem? No thanks.

See, global warming and climate change has been happening for eons. It is a natural cycle that we should NOT be toying with. Our supposed contributions to high CO2 emissions is not true. We put out significantly less CO2 emissions than natural causes do, and I seriously can not believe we are causing any issues that have not presented themselves in Earth's history before and is probably happening regardless of our contributions to the atmosphere, or that we should even worry about it. The current panic over global warming is something I classify as something along the lines of Y2K and 2012 Armageddon myths, and only can be backed up with Psuedoscience.

[Mystic]

Rob, your definition of "pseudoscience" is really kinda wrong here. I think you're confusing the media frenzy over "global warming" with the very real science saying that the planet is getting warmer. There is a debate as to what's causing it, but a scientific debate is very different from a political debate, where people try to actually prove it because science is not about opinion. It's either our fault, not our fault, or a combination of factors both natural and human-generated (the most likely answer). One of these is the absolute truth, and science is about determining the truth, we just don't know it yet. No amount of squabbling in Congress or on television news programs can change something that actually has a correct answer.

If you want to talk about pseudoscience, there are plenty of things that really ARE pseudoscience. Meteorology is not one of them.

[glaber]

Ah, but due to climategate (really need a better name for that) the science it self is under question of if politics influenced the results. One of the emails said something about a trick to "hide the decline". I ask you, why do they need to hide the decline.

[Mystic]

Biased people are biased. One of the time-honored traditions in every field is to sit down and try to spin the facts to make bad conclusions to support your pet ideas. Proper science shows both the facts and the conclusions made to allow the rest of the scientific community to check on the legitimacy of the conclusions. This is why it's important to look at multiple sources for information. The facts don't change though.

The following are facts:

* The global average temperature of the Earth is rising. (No question, it's easy enough to measure)
* Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This one is a little harder to measure, but it's easily testable scientifically and can be proven.
* Humans have put tons of CO2 into the air since the industrial revolution.

The following are multiple hypothesis that have been put forth to explain the facts:

* Human activity is responsible for the increase in the global average temperature.
* Human activity is partially responsible for the increase in the global average temperature.
* Human activity is not related at all with the increase in the global average temperature.

The facts are easy to test and prove. The temperature is either going up or it's not. The hypothesis that humans are responsible is a lot harder to test, but it CAN be determined one way or the other. We just need enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

To use an example that HAS been proven beyond reasonable doubt, plate tectonics is something that if you had asked the scientific community about 100 years ago, they would have laughed you out of the room. There wasn't nearly enough evidence to suggest that entire continents could move around the planet. The forces involved in such a thing are mind-boggling, after all. As time went on, more evidence was obtained and we learned that they most certainly do move around, and plate tectonics explains many seemingly uncorrelated natural forces (earthquakes, volcanism, island chain formation).

There is not yet enough evidence to conclude one way or the other if human activity is responsible for global warming. It is definitely highly in our interest to find out, though. It's also probably in our interest to reduce CO2 emissions in case it turns out we ARE responsible. We probably won't know either way until decades later.

[Fawfulfan]

I would just like to point out that I'm not advocating that we all go ahead and spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere without a lot of further study. The evidence so far is that it works, but there is a high risk that it will work too well. The real beauty behind it is that the very potential to do it should make us less worried about global warming, because it is a cheap and powerful fix that we don't have to do anytime soon. We can wait, and try alternatives first.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Rob, your definition of "pseudoscience" is really kinda wrong here. I think you're confusing the media frenzy over "global warming" with the very real science saying that the planet is getting warmer.

I understand this, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Global warming, the actual change of climate, is something that has been proven, and that the Earth has undergone climate changes in the past is something that has been proven, and I understand that.
The current panic on global warming and the myths surrounding it, such as being a disastrous Armageddon, or anything along those lines is pseudoscience, has and the subsequent panic over the issue is a result of that, and not based on anything even remotely rational. And this bothers me, especially when I see people promoting the current 'go green' fad because of something that's just complete nonsense.

[Mystic]

I don't think we can really call "go green" a fad considering it's been around for decades now.

Also, I wouldn't really call the global warming armageddon thing "pseudoscience" as much as I would just say that all the news agencies love dramatics to the point of stretching the facts, and this is true for EVERY news agency, not just including the ones I personally disagree with. Pseudoscience implies they're pretending it's science. In reality, it's a lot more like this: http://mystic.sepwich.com/image/2007...ss-devices.png

[Zinos]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Again, I stress this again and again. Global warming will not destroy humanity or the planet. All it will do is cause slightly more severe weather, and should it get bad enough, raise the ocean water level somewhat. It could also change weather patterns worldwide, which could do things like make deserts where the land is currently fertile (and vice versa). This is not something that will cause humanity to go extinct by any means. It would be quite annoying, though.

If this does affect human population, then there will be less humans to pollute the Earth, think about that. It will eventually level out.