Where is the 'common ground' in discussing global climate change?

Question

Where is the 'common ground' in discussing global climate change?

Answer 1

The common ground in the discussion of the climatic cycle _should_ be REAL science, not movies or 'consensus'.



1. Science is not a consensus activity

2. _All_ scientists do NOT agree

3. Even the socialistic EU "scientists" are

backpedalling on their GW stance

4. Global warming, like global cooling is part of the

natural climatic cycle.

5. There have been many such cycles in Earth's

history.

6. Earth is presently in the last stages of an ice

age and was considerably warmer for most of its

history.

7. Floating ice occupies the same volume as would the

liquid water that comprises it.

8. Even if the ocean levels rise the alarmist 28

feet, just move away from the beach.

9. Warmer climate means more crop growing area.

10. Water is not going anywhere. Except for what we

have shot into space with rockets, there is the same

amount as there always was.





Thermohaline cycle

Warm water is less dense than cold water. One of the ocean currents runs North up the east coast of the U.S.

When this warm ocean water reaches the arctic ocean, it is cooled which makes it become more dense. The now dense salt water drops to the sea floor and begins its return to the southern loop of its cycle.

Fresh water from meltoff of the northern ice pack dilutes this sea water which makes it less dense.

The diluted, less dense water drops to the sea floor more slowly which slows the entire cycle.

If diluted enough, this circulation stops entirely.

When the circulation stops, then the planet will begin to cool and enter an ice age which will stop the meltoff.

As the salinity in the north Atlantic increases, the water will once again begin to sink to the sea floor and the cycle will restart and our planet will emerge from its ice age and enter another warm period.

That is happening now.

It will change.

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 2

I don't believe ruse or propaganda will solve this type of disclosure. Many questions ask are nothing more then splitting hairs."(Hence)",my sarcastic overtones on certain poser's. The outcome is still going to be the same, necessity seems to dictate behavior not the inverse. Then you always have the infringement issues. Whether they are economics, judicial, bureaucratic, or environmental. This has always been a dilemma for mankind, personal freedom-vs-the overall well being of a collective. My views and way of life are mine, and I usually make the right decisions unless goaded or forced.

Answer 3

Perhaps not everyone agrees that people are the ones who are causing global warming. Some people fear the coming of an ice age.



For the last few million years, the normal state of affairs has been an ice age where most of North America was covered with 1.5km of ice. The climate warmed up once in a while for relatively short periods of time. But then it quickly went back into an ice age.



The average warm period between previous ice ages has been between 11,000 and 12,000 years. And our present warm period is now approaching 12,000 years.



The energy coming from the Sun is not always constant. It varies over time. And this is the most likely cause of the recent ice ages and warm periods on Earth.

Answer 4

Oh, I agree with whatever you say because you speak so sexy!



Anyway, what you have called for has been desired for in near every debate since debating began, but no amount of modification, apology, etc., will prevent people from being selective on facts, inconsistent, illogical, dishonest, and, most important of all, willing to admit error. If even so much as challenging one side incurs upon you the label of "enemy supporter" what point is there in even trying?



The mere fact that you ask for facts and sensibility means you are an oil loving neocon, I mean, a nation hating socialist, or something.



Thou art doomed if you don't put titanium in your spine and fight as hard as your ethics allow.

Answer 5

As long as the alarmist continue to say that the debate and discussion is over...we will reach no middle ground. We all want cleaner water and less gunk in the air. But, the greenies are over-reaching on this one...with no science to connect man to climate change.



Especially since the 4 major stations that track the earth's climate say the earth has cooled in the past ten years...this adds fuel to the fire for the other side, when we are told the debate is over.

Answer 6

There should be a common ground, because we would all benefit from reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Oil is a finite resource, if we haven't reached peak production already we will soon, it's mainly concentrated in unstable political regions, and it has adverse emissions besides GHG.



The problem lies in the magnitude of global warming. In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, scientists have said that we need to reduce our emissions by 80% by the year 2050. I think most 'skeptics' are fine with very slow and gradual emissions reductions, but not with the scale and speed required. For example, some global warming 'skeptics' consider massive 20 mpg SUV hybrids to be 'green':



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20080514053933AAGwWpg



While I think these cars should be eliminated entirely precisely because they're inefficient and wasteful.

Answer 7

I believe that there won't be a 'common ground' because the alarmists want to have everyone so panicked that they'll make up 'facts' just to get what they want funded, (carbon credits, more expensive light bulbs). Now they're even changing their wording because the global temperatures aren't going as they predicted they would.



When everyone just calms down a little bit, then maybe we'll find our 'common ground'.

Answer 8

I think it's an scientific issue not a political one. Let's not soak up every piece of propaganda the corrupt politicians feed us.



Many scientists disagree with the theories presented by Al Gore. And since Al Gore isn't a scientist himself.. I need more information from credible sources! Many scientists believe the global warming is caused by the sun. They say that the ocean and volcano creates much more CO2 gasses than human beings. Let's open our minds and listen to all sides of this debate.



http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php



http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php



"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

Albert Einstein

Answer 9

Environmental problems are in no way silly.



Claiming CO2 is a pollutant is very silly.

Using that piece of mis-information to shut down industry is maddening.



"They" want to tell ME that I can't burn fossil fuels. I have a big problem with that.

Answer 10

I've given this an incredible amount of thought.



edit:



The left didn’t start the acrimony.



When someone is disrespectful to you, you have a right to challenge it. But often, what a manipulative bully will do is turn it around and claim that the person challenging the affront is the one being disrespectful.



The progressives saw a problem, not just an ordinary we can live with it problem, but a real earth changing we need to do something about this before its too late problem.



The trouble is, the fix upsets the status quo.



So there is no way, no way in hell that the vested interests are going to just lay down and say “Oh, you’re right, we lose”, no matter what the science says. I believe people at the top of the food chain are so insular in their thinking they actually believe they can survive and prosper no matter what happens in the world, or to any of its minions.



When the left sees the absolutely egregious affronts to sanity, like for example chemical industry pabulum about how “the toxic effects you experience are not real” and “no one can prove toxicity at this concentration” and inevitably, later, the toxic effects are documented, proven and the study results reproduced and the chemical gets banned, and this happens over and over again, one loses patience.



I’m not like Gandhi. I don’t believe progressives are losing the war because enough haven’t yet lain down in front of the tanks. I believe it is because there is a fundamental difference between progressives and reactionaries. Reactionaries are single minded, aggressive and will fight to the last to defend the dogma despite all reason and logic to the contrary. Progressives see the shades of gray in the world, and are willing to be more flexible and want to work out a compromise that is based on scientific principles.



So now we have the last great tactic of the reactionary right - the science is bogus.



The science is not bogus. The average person is woefully ignorant of the content and meaning of science; and hence the real nature of things. Of course, they would much rather things be easy than hard; rather let things go the way they are then to make life-altering changes. So they are easily manipulated.



I will not be laying down in front of any tanks. I will fight this to my dying day because we have no alternative. If we don’t try to fix this - we, our economy, our society, our earth and all complex life on it are flirting with disaster and possibly on a one way trip to oblivion.



I didn’t start the fight by creating acrimony from nothing. I simply reacted to the disrespect to logic, sanity and the earth.



But now they claim it’s our fault because we are making a “religion” out of common sense and trying to ram it down everyone’s throat.



No, they started it by ramming egregious affronts to sanity down our throats and you know what?



I’ve had enough and I’m not going to take it anymore.



In the past, I honestly didn’t care what the hell people did, if we want to commit mass suicide and take the earth with us, so be it. Mine is not to question the way of the universe. But then something happened. I had to make a choice between my beautiful wife and having children. And in a fit of passion, grief, madness and optimism, I agreed to make two beautiful boys. When I look into their eyes, how could I lie to them and myself and not try to do everything I can to preserve the world for them? Conceited, self-centered, thin rationale? Can’t help it, it’s instinct.



The war is on and it is going to run until we find common ground and a solution or until the earth collapses; which ever comes first.



E.O. Wilson also said “…we will look back from the end of the 21st century with a profound sense of loss and regret.”



The saddest and most embittering part of all this - is that we have the solution in our hands! We have the knowledge and the technology to live a clean green simple healthy un-impoverished satisfying and fulfilling life, today, in the here and now. And by God, it’s still not too late.



Are we so self-centered and greedy that we would sooner destroy everything than… …what?



I don’t have the answer. Yet.



Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Answer 11

Its reflective of the environment we live in.

Answer 12

One point of common ground is that no matter what factors are contributing to climate change, be they CO2, soot, or ocean currents such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), while China and India build 775 new coal plants from 2004-2012, all attempts to reduce global CO2 emissions will fail.



India alone, with 213 coal plant in planning, wipes out Kyoto savings. China's contribution to the CO2 increase will be about 4X larger than projected Kyoto savings. There's a bar graph showing the increases vs. decreases here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html



Even the coal power plant projects planned in other nations (not even included in the bar graph totals) will easily wipe out Kyoto savings:

"58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions."



Since global CO2 reductions are impossible while worldwide nations grow their coal-generated electricity, automobile use, and general consumption of manufactured goods, we need to unite to fight the shameless attempt to use global warming as an irrational excuse to implement massive new taxes.



Using Gross Domestic Product growth as an indicator of consumption and emission growth, while China grows at 9% per year they would wipe out a 100% U.S. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years.



So by 2018 China's growth is guaranteed to wipe out U.S savings and India and other nations will build 553 power plants to grow emissions at a rate 2.5X larger than the total of all global Kyoto reductions. Global greenhouse gas emissions are on track be significantly higher than today in 10 years, no matter what the U.S. does, no matter what all developed nations do.



Exactly who is suppolsedly going to reduce global emissions 80%, and when will those people start talking about reductions, let alone start implementing them?



Clearly the people who reject theories of anthropogenic mechanisms for global warming have no monopoly on willful denial. People who want to do something about the problem, but believe, irrationally, that response by developed nations alone will have any measurable effect on the problem, are seriously deluded, ignoring the simple math of population and economic growth in developing nations.



We should unite to educate people and stamp out that ignorance.



Only when developing nations clearly see the tragic results that their suicidal/homocidal growth strategy will bring will the world be able to tackle this problem in an effective manner. Until then, economic investments should focus on developing the technologies needed to replace carbon-emitting sources, and we need to build capital reserves to pay for it. That can't be done while massive new taxes suck an additional 5% of an average family's income out of their hands (most of their disposible income after living expenses), plus trigger significant price hikes in all goods and services as businesses attempt to mitigate the financial damage to the economy as personal consumption plummets.



It would be the worst kind of hypocrisy to claim that you stand for something, only to accept the first, totally ineffective, proposal that comes your way. For the moment the only fight that has the potential to save the planet is the fight to get all nations involved, and the fight to amass the financial resources to fund the fight and to deploy the technological solutions once global populations stand united to fight it. While working toward that necessary prerequisite of global unity we can focus on mitigating the damage (develop drought-resistant corn, ban development on coastal land to be flooded, etc).



The whole argument about what's causing global warming is pointless. Let's not let that false drama distract us away from careful and critical analysis of the proposed "solutions", which currently seem to only dramatically reduce our capability to effectively respond in the future.

Answer 13

I don't think you will ever find common ground. Those who believe do not want to agree with others who are working to reduce pollution, as the believers only think their way is the only way to protect the planet.



Truly global warming has more traits of a religion than a science. It's more important that you believe as they do then it is to clean the environment.

Answer 14

energy costs

Answer 15

dont blame me I'm not from around here. but if this planet gets much colder I'm going back home soon.

Answer 16

There is no discussion as it is a lie propagated by Gore.