Nobel Peace Bull Shit...err Prize

[zorm]

I am conflicted as to the truthfulness and consequences of global warming. The problem I have is that both sides have an agenda to fulfil, and both sides pay scientists who miraculously agree with them. So it really comes down to: would I rather believe the oil companies or the environmentalists? That's a crappy choice, but I've decided that I would rather believe the ones that aren't in it for the money. Oil companies are trying to make a profit, and environmentalists are trying to help the world. It's obvious which one is more noble.

And some of the consequences:
- Changes in precipitation causing flooding and draught
- Changes in extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.)
- Disruption of agriculture, which may cause famines and death
- Lowering of ocean pH, which may cause massive extinctions and a disruption to the ecosystem

And there are others, too. It's not just about it getting wetter.

The funny thing is one that's frequently missed: one of the primary causes of global warming is the farming of cattle. Studies have shown that livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse emissions, which is higher than transportation. That works out to about 1.5 tonnes of emissions per year by an average person, just from eating meat! The problem is that the meat industry has a lot of money and, therefore, influence, so you rarely hear about that.

A couple of things, it is very true that scientists are raking it in from both sides and so a lot of the research probably is bias'd one way or the other. But I know for a fact that there is a lot of research being done that isn't along the lines of "the globe is getting hotter, we're all going to die! OMG!" and a lot of it involves figuring out the answers to some of the things you've mentioned.

Cattle farming produces a different greenhouse gas(in this case methane). They've but a fair amount of research into figuring out just how much cows fart from what I understand, sounds like fun stuff. AFAIK, and I could be wrong, but I don't think the amount of the emissions from this cause are necessarily higher infact, I suspect they're a lot lower. Its just a case of methane is much better at causing warming than something like CO2.

The other thing is that those consequences(which you probably already know, you seem to have done your homework) would likely only become visible after many generations. A lot of people were screaming "OMG GLOBAL WARMING!" after the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record. Yet the 2006 season was more towards the opposite end of the spectrum.. A single season or event can't verify something like global warming.

[iago]

A couple of things, it is very true that scientists are raking it in from both sides and so a lot of the research probably is bias'd one way or the other. But I know for a fact that there is a lot of research being done that isn't along the lines of "the globe is getting hotter, we're all going to die! OMG!" and a lot of it involves figuring out the answers to some of the things you've mentioned.

That's good. With issues like this, I get to a point where I stop caring for the sole reason that I don't feel like I can believe anybody who's involved, so I just settle on being more or less uncertain. I don't do a lot of reading about this, though, so others probably know more than me.

Cattle farming produces a different greenhouse gas(in this case methane). They've but a fair amount of research into figuring out just how much cows fart from what I understand, sounds like fun stuff. AFAIK, and I could be wrong, but I don't think the amount of the emissions from this cause are necessarily higher infact, I suspect they're a lot lower. Its just a case of methane is much better at causing warming than something like CO2.

According to the article I linked, livestock produce 9 percent of CO₂, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. I have no idea how each of those contribute to the greenhouse effect, though.

The other thing is that those consequences(which you probably already know, you seem to have done your homework) would likely only become visible after many generations. A lot of people were screaming "OMG GLOBAL WARMING!" after the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record. Yet the 2006 season was more towards the opposite end of the spectrum.. A single season or event can't verify something like global warming.

Research is probably the wrong word. I've heard and read a little about it, but not really researched. In any case, I'm always suspicious of "proof" like a single harsh season. I'd be interested if you could point us to some neutral and non-shockist sources.

[zorm]

Its hard to find the actual sources for a lot of the information but if you feel so inclined you can google something like "Dr. Karoly global warming" and probably find a wealth of information from that. I don't really follow the debate all that closely.

Dr. Karoly participated in the IPCC report(that won the peace prize), but he presented a lot of the information he gathered and the like to us in class.
I know I wasn't very convinced by a lot of the stuff he presented, i.e. using things like computer models to "prove" this theory or that. But the point remains that it is valid science and in general is reasonably neutral.