GMO and Global Warming

[Apple Of Sodom]

Oh, there it is. Nevermind. You are exactly what I thought you are. Scientists confirm that man is responsible for it.

Link? I have an open mind and am willing to change it based on new evidence. I simply stated I don't believe man is solely responsible for it. Maybe not a drop in the bucket (hyperbole) but my point was that we alone cannot stop the natural process and should begin adapting to our world. I am not here to debate WHAT is causing climate change, and I am not going to tell you that you are wrong, just stating it exists and we still have people (usually on the right) who completely deny its existence (not just questioning what is causing it.)

 

[Paul98]

Man made global warming made simple. There is natural variation, there is change based on man made factors. When looking at global temperature there is the natural change, then man made change is added to it. Both natural and man made have explanations for why they change the way they do. Exactly how much change is man made is being debated. Unless you do scientific analysis on the data, it's best to read the latest science to see what is known. This latest science says man has a large part in changing climate, and causing the globe to warm quite a bit over the natural variation.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Nobody argues that humans are solely responsible for climate change.

Your statement that humans are a "drop in the bucket" for the increasing temperatures we have seen is at odds with science every bit as much as the anti-GMO nutters are. This makes your thread kind of ironic, don't you think?

I suppose it would make it ironic. Drop in the bucket is a bit of hyperbole. While I do not believe humans are solely responsible, I do think that we have introduced unnatural substances to earth that may make the normal trends stray from historic warming/cooling. I think there is also a lot of money to be made off of carbon credits, and I think right wing morons have dug in and am flabbergasted when people flat out deny climate change. What is causing it? I think natural cycles along with us overconsuming. But at the same time I am not 100% sure and it seems as though neither is the scientific community. The theories change almost yearly, pointing to new evidence here or there. Hell, even the term global warming changes to "climate change." As I stated, humans should change their behavior, but I don't think that alone will change where we are headed.

Same with GMO. We might disagree whether or not putting fish dna into a tomato (which never was consumed by the way) is a good idea, but by and large, GMO is beneficial to society.

 

[xBiffx]

This guy seems to outline the issue of GMO food safety pretty well while commenting on comments made by physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson . He even mentions global warming while doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZDxtIhXZQ

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Man made global warming made simple. There is natural variation, there is change based on man made factors. When looking at global temperature there is the natural change, then man made change is added to it. Both natural and man made have explanations for why they change the way they do. Exactly how much change is man made is being debated. Unless you do scientific analysis on the data, it's best to read the latest science to see what is known. This latest science says man has a large part in changing climate, and causing the globe to warm quite a bit over the natural variation.

I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that this is an area of debate with changing opinions on WHY it is happening, not that it is happening, among scientists. I am pointing to those on the right who say it simply isn't happening at all.

Same with GMO foods - there is a lot of research and opinions change. What I don't get is how those on the left (mostly left it seems) are jumping on the bandwagon saying all GMO is bad. They are not better than the far right stating climate change is not happening.

 

[Paul98]

I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that this is an area of debate with changing opinions on WHY it is happening, not that it is happening, among scientists. I am pointing to those on the right who say it simply isn't happening at all.

Same with GMO foods - there is a lot of research and opinions change. What I don't get is how those on the left (mostly left it seems) are jumping on the bandwagon saying all GMO is bad. They are not better than the far right stating climate change is not happening.

Then you should look at the science. There are tons of papers on why these different changes are happening, and what factors effect it.

 

[bshole]

This latest science says man has a large part in changing climate, and causing the globe to warm quite a bit over the natural variation.

Love the precision in the latest science. Define "large part"?! Define "quite a bit"?!

I define quite a bit as 25 degrees C. You may define quite a bit at 0.1 degrees C. Quite a bit is entirely subjective. Read any article on global warming and you will notice that there is an awful lot of subjective fear-mongering and precious little science. You will see the terms "may" and "could" littered all over the place along with hideously dire predictions. Naturally the dire predictions are all for some distant time in the future after we have all died of old age.

 

[xBiffx]

Only idiots speak in absolutes. Especially when dealing with science. By definition, science and its methods are a guessing game. Sometimes it can be proven you are right however many times you are proven wrong. If neither can be proven then you've got an explanation that fits the parameters (a best guess) until something else comes along that can change that explanation.

All we can do in the meantime is discuss what is known today. What we know is possible and what we know is impossible, the latter being much more difficult to prove.

 

[bshole]

Only idiots speak in absolutes.

Are you speaking absolutely?

ROFLMFAO!!!

 

[fskimospy]

I suppose it would make it ironic. Drop in the bucket is a bit of hyperbole. While I do not believe humans are solely responsible, I do think that we have introduced unnatural substances to earth that may make the normal trends stray from historic warming/cooling. I think there is also a lot of money to be made off of carbon credits, and I think right wing morons have dug in and am flabbergasted when people flat out deny climate change. What is causing it? I think natural cycles along with us overconsuming. But at the same time I am not 100% sure and it seems as though neither is the scientific community. The theories change almost yearly, pointing to new evidence here or there. Hell, even the term global warming changes to "climate change." As I stated, humans should change their behavior, but I don't think that alone will change where we are headed.

While I appreciate your openness to information, I think if you really do go look at the science you will see that human contributions to the warming we have seen are substantial and that science has developed a strong consensus on that matter.

Interesting note, did you know that the popularization of the term climate change didn't come from the scientific community?? It's something that famed Republican pollster Frank Luntz came up with in an attempt to trivialize global warming because he thought it sounded less scary. So the term climate change is actually verbiage from the denier community.

Same with GMO. We might disagree whether or not putting fish dna into a tomato (which never was consumed by the way) is a good idea, but by and large, GMO is beneficial to society.

I agree!

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Then you should look at the science. There are tons of papers on why these different changes are happening, and what factors effect it.

Right. And I have been reading them. And this scientist here debunks that scientist there, but that scientist and his group confirm it... it is like a big pissing match between them all. You can understand why even an educated person could be confused as to what is the true cause? Everyone seems to have an agenda and the cause itself seems to be a hot debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

Interesting read. Not very long.

 

[Paul98]

Love the precision in the latest science. Define "large part"?! Define "quite a bit"?!

I define quite a bit as 25 degrees C. You may define quite a bit at 0.1 degrees C. Quite a bit is entirely subjective. Read any article on global warming and you will notice that there is an awful lot of subjective fear-mongering and precious little science. You will see the terms "may" and "could" littered all over the place along with hideously dire predictions. Naturally the dire predictions are all for some distant time in the future after we have all died of old age.

Quite a bit compared to the natural variation look at percentages. If the earth should be cooling by .3 degrees and instead the earth warms by .1 degree due to man. That is a large change compared to the natural variation.

 

[fskimospy]

Right. And I have been reading them. And this scientist here debunks that scientist there, but that scientist and his group confirm it... it is like a big pissing match between them all. You can understand why even an educated person could be confused as to what is the true cause? Everyone seems to have an agenda and the cause itself seems to be a hot debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

Interesting read. Not very long.

The guy who wrote that is literally a lobbyist for fossil fuel groups.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

While I appreciate your openness to information, I think if you really do go look at the science you will see that human contributions to the warming we have seen are substantial and that science has developed a strong consensus on that matter.

I see two groups fighting and debunking. I tend to think one group may be more politically/money motivated than the other and side with the other. There seems to be a lot of money being made off of the group stating it is mostly humans though.

Articles like this are why I am unsure as to why it is happening. But that is beside the point. The point was you have idiots claiming it simply isn't...just like idiots claim GMO is simply bad for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

 

[bshole]

I think if you really do go look at the science you will see that human contributions to the warming we have seen are substantial and that science has developed a strong consensus on that matter.

This is what I talking about.... "substantial"..... WTF is that?

More importantly where is the scientific data that proves warming is an overall negative and not a positive? Every single warming epoch in the earth's history corresponded with massive explosions in LIFE and in DIVERSITY OF LIFE. This is a provable fact backed up by a fossil record that runs millions of years. Now "scientists" tell us that this warming is somehow bad because we are contributing to it? I say fucking prove it you dipshits. Go to the fossil record and find a single instance of warming reducing life (in quantity or diversity) on earth.

 

[fskimospy]

I see two groups fighting and debunking. I tend to think one group may be more politically/money motivated than the other and side with the other. There seems to be a lot of money being made off of the group stating it is mostly humans though.

Wait, you think the scientific community has more money than the fossil fuel industry? Seriously?

Articles like this are why I am unsure as to why it is happening. But that is beside the point. The point was you have idiots claiming it simply isn't...just like idiots claim GMO is simply bad for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

As I said above, you're quoting an article that was literally written by the fossil fuel lobby. It is simply not an honest source.

 

[dank69]

I see two groups fighting and debunking. I tend to think one group may be more politically/money motivated than the other and side with the other. There seems to be a lot of money being made off of the group stating it is mostly humans though.

Articles like this are why I am unsure as to why it is happening. But that is beside the point. The point was you have idiots claiming it simply isn't...just like idiots claim GMO is simply bad for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

Read up on how corporations fought with scientists about lead content. The climate change fight is the same thing. Conservatives don't learn from history all while telling everyone how liberals ignore history. It's really quite amusing, you know, if you ignore the part about the stubbornness being detrimental to everyone's health.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

The guy who wrote that is literally a lobbyist for fossil fuel groups.

I won't dismiss what he has to say for that reason alone. Everyone is in someone else's pocket. He is pointing to studies and predictions done by other scientists. Again, one can see why it is confusing?

 

[Paul98]

Right. And I have been reading them. And this scientist here debunks that scientist there, but that scientist and his group confirm it... it is like a big pissing match between them all. You can understand why even an educated person could be confused as to what is the true cause? Everyone seems to have an agenda and the cause itself seems to be a hot debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

Interesting read. Not very long.

You need to look at the actual science and understand the process and what is actually said and what it actually means. Understand what man made global warming actually means. The globe could cool and man made global warming could still be warming the earth. So you would cool less than if man made global warming didn't exist.

This is why you need to read the actual science and see what it actually says and not what is written in the media.

If the earth does start to cool, there are lots of indicators that will show it outside of the air temperatures.

The more I learn and understand about climate change, the more I have become convinced about man made global warming. I used to be where you are where I wasn't sure and wasn't convinced how much we really knew.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Wait, you think the scientific community has more money than the fossil fuel industry? Seriously?



As I said above, you're quoting an article that was literally written by the fossil fuel lobby. It is simply not an honest source.

No. But Al Gore has made a lot of money off of carbon credits.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You need to look at the actual science and understand the process and what is actually said and what it actually means. Understand what man made global warming actually means. The globe could cool and man made global warming could still be warming the earth. So you would cool less than if man made global warming didn't exist.

This is why you need to read the actual science and see what it actually says and not what is written in the media.

If the earth does start to cool, there are lots of indicators that will show it outside of the air temperatures.

The more I learn and understand about climate change, the more I have become convinced about man made global warming. I used to be where you are where I wasn't sure and wasn't convinced how much we really knew.

This is exactly what I am saying about GMO. Read about it. Listen to scientists. Listen to experts. Don't jump on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

 

[Paul98]

This is exactly what I am saying about GMO. Read about it. Listen to scientists. Listen to experts. Don't jump on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

Then will you listen to the vast body of science backing up man made global warming?

 

[fskimospy]

I won't dismiss what he has to say for that reason alone. Everyone is in someone else's pocket. He is pointing to studies and predictions done by other scientists. Again, one can see why it is confusing?

He's a person who is literally paid to distort the truth in favor of the energy industry. It's crazy to listen to someone as if they are objective when their job is literally to lie to you.

He mentions the papers by three climate change deniers and attempts to paint them as somehow the equivalent of the thousands and thousands of scientists who accept AGW. It's not confusing, he's deliberately trying to manipulate you.

 

[thraashman]

This op-ed is deeply dishonest. Specifically I see how they apparently have not read Cook's paper as they claim that it was incorrect categorization of abstracts into endorsements for AGW. In fact, they asked the authors to rate their own papers as well, and the results came back with an even stronger consensus.

http://skepticalscience.com/how_97.html

Exactly. The original study says that 97% that took a stance say that man is at minimum a contributing factor to global warming. The wsj article is coming back and saying "well that's a lie because only 41 papers claim that man is mostly to blame, so HA!". That'd be like me saying "handguns are responsible for more deaths in crime than anything else" and someone else saying "more people die in car wrecks than from guns so that debunks you!". It isn't a false statement but it's unrelated to the original statement and proves nothing. It is in fact a lie as a result and quite fucking stupid.

I will never understand how the conservative mind thinks, because I honestly am not sure it is capable of rational thought.

 

[dphantom]

He mentions the papers by three climate change deniers

They are not climate change deniers. What they are proposing is that we may be entering a cooling period, thus seeing a change in climate. They disagree with other scientists that CO2 and other man released GHGs are the primary cause of the warming trend we have seen over the last 100 years or so.

They may be wrong and the data will show that fairly soon. Or they may be right and the data will also show that.