[QUOTE=MartyW;2144872]
Ok, I get all that. But then on top of that they tell us that it is our fault that the weather patterns are changing. And its our doing. Even though, individually, Mt. St Helen's and Vesuvius, individually in one day, put more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind's creations from his emergence from the sea. (Not that I believe the sea was our origin, so sue me) And they tell us, we have the power to fix it. Oh well, good thing I'm one of those people who believe in intelligent design. Otherwise I might loose sleep over 60 degree weather in New England in November and a greatly needed input of precipitation in desert areas (which use to be fertile wet lands) getting snow.
[\QUOTE]
To this point, you were doing pretty well. Nothing negative to say about that prior to this, in my opinion.
First, We are not discussing Climate Change. We are discussing the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. This does not mean we are controlling the climate it means we are affecting it.
Yes, that is very true. The climate is ALWAYS and has always changed. So, what is the big deal now? The problem is some changes are occurring faster than expected based on scientific models developed decades ago.
Not long after they were developed, scientists started noticing small deviations that the model didn't predict. Investigations followed, and new models were developed, and they indicated that the deviations resulted from what people were doing.
That all happened a long time ago. It was an "exciting" breakthrough for scientists, so they told everyone what they found A common occurrence; scientists tend not to be very good communicators). Sadly the models were not very robust and had flaws - many flaws. So the announcement resulted in a lot of misinterpretations. The scientist went back to work and came up with ever-improving models. Those improving models resulted in better predictions that more accurately predicted changes.
Eventually, they announced that if we didn't change our evil ways (sorry couldn't resist), we would reach a point where the models predicted that the changes would not be able to be stopped based on existing science and technology. I think the time period was like 10 to 20 years, but the media picked this up and ran with 10 years (I could be wrong here). This would then result - unless something happened - in an Ice Age being triggered to occur much sooner than it should have - 100's of years instead of thousands. And that the effect of that change would start to be seen in decades.
This all got picked up by politicians as a really good way they could scare the people into voting for them - either to stop the change or to stop the stopping of the change. And the mischaracterizations, distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies began. You may have noticed I left out the Oil Industry, which launched a massive disinformation campaign involving things like faked studies and paid-off politicians. etc. (Look up Exxon and faking and misreporting studies they did)
So, the bottom line, we missed the deadline for stopping the tripping point and can no longer, given the current state of science and technology, stop the Ice Age from starting early. The best we can do at this point is to slow it down - a little, And maybe, we can put off the seriously bad stuff long enough that science can come up with a way to reverse what we have done.
Note, at NO POINT did scientists ever say we caused the coming Ice Age, just that our actions affected it by speeding up its development.
Quote:
|
When they figure out which of these is true.... get back to me.
|
I hate to break the bad news to you, but for the most part, science doesn't work that way. They say what is likely and how likely - the how likely is much hard than the what.
The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a theory That is a cute way to say, this is something that predicts something that MIGHT happen. But being a theory, it might be wrong. VERY seldom will you find a scientist that will claim something is true (FACT). Sometimes, they do, but more often they refer to theories - ideas that make useful predictions; For example, it is mostly accepted that if you hold a hammer out at arm's length and let go, it will fall. The scientific reason that it falls is a theory. We do not know the truth. We have a theory, the theory is called gravitational attraction - gravity. The theory is pretty good, it says it will fall, and in every test case so far, it has... Theory proven. But, we don't know why. So, we can't really say that someday it might not fall,
So, to your comment, when they know what's true - probably isn't going to happen at least not in our lifetimes. Does that mean the next time you take a flight you should try stepping out of a plane without a parachute? Probably a bad idea, even if it is just a theory.
[QUOTE]
All that being said, I do believe in climate change. Not that the changes we are seeing are man made, but can be scientifically explained by some of the info above. I’ve noted (not scientifically) that for most recent years winter temps are just as severe, but come a month or more later. Seeing October weather in early December... ok, spring seems to come later.
{/QOUTE]
Actually, changes do occur, and as far as we know always have, it appears to be true. Scientisst do have theories on why weather changes and models that predict those changes, but those also are theories, different theories (but related to) those theories that predict change made because of the Anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
Quote:
|
Now with the “ever expanding” theory of the Big Bang, those kind of changes then make sense to me...”
|
Big Bang is a theory as you said, but it is coming under more and more scrutiny. And, there is always the question of why and what was before it. So, actually while the Big Bang is fairly good at predicting MOST cosmic events, there are many it fails to predict - fails miserably.
Lucky for us, Big Bang is still kind of esoteric. It has little impact on our daily lives and probably won't for a long time. Sadly the Anthropogenic greenhouse effect theory is accurately making predictions that will and do affect OUR lives and will have an even greater effect on our children and their children. Science is in a race, a race I believe it will win, but nonetheless a race, to save life as we know it. "Climate change" will not destroy the world, and it has never been claimed to do so. It will not kill off all life on earth and has never claimed it would despite the claims of some. And it will not kill off all human life. (We are much more likely to do that to ourselves, but that is another thread)
What will happen if the theory's predictions are correct is that like for humans (all life actually) will be impacted and will not be the same as we know it. How much change is a topic for another thread, but serious change will result in a lot of death. How much is a lot? It depends on how much longer we wait to take definitive actions.
Worst case, the predictions are wrong, and we spend a lot of money making the world a cleaner, healthier place for our descendants to live. (Well, not the worst, we could be right and do nothing, but I was trying to find a positive note to end on).