[mattW]

If you would like to debate the various tenants of Climate Change, here is the only place to do so. If you are easily offended then you should probably avoid this thread but we urge all members to civil and respectful. DIY Electric car doesn't have an official stance on this issue but please limit discussion to this thread only so that we can all get on with the job of building EVs. Both sides of the debate are here to build electric cars, so don't forget what unites us here.

[david85]

I guess the first think We could do is pin down what exactly we mean by debating "climate change" or "global warming".

For me the definition of the debate is really about anthropological climate change. This implies that we are somehow responsible for changes in climate by way of CO2 emissions (and other so called "green house gasses", like methane, etc).

This theory can then be contrasted against recorded data over the last few decades, since the theory of anthropological climate change has been around long enough to be able to start testing it.

Any objections or thoughts?

[david85]

To kick things off, I found a rare public debate on the issue between two well known scientists on opposing sides of the issue.

http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/....html?id=18946

1 hour and 15 minutes.

[sunworksco]

The same misinformed people that want to dispute the fact that Earth is much older than the Bible is debating the scientific fact that points to human industrialization causing global warming.The science is indisputable unless you are a hired scientific gun hired by the dirty energy providers.The core samples taken from earth's icecaps proofs without a doubt that their recorded history of carbon storage shows a graphical event of our human carbon footprint since man started burning fuel.People here on this blog might as well say the Earth is flat if they are disputing human contributed global warming.What boggles the mind is why someone building a EV would have opposition to the real data of global warming science! I don't think Rush L. is behind the Tesla!

[david85]

Welcome back, sunworksco.

Just so you know, we are not discussing the bible, creationism, or the earth being flat.

Did you watch the video from start to finish? Can you be a little more specific in your concerns of the info?

[Jason Lattimer]

Can anybody explain why the EPA suppressed a document showing global temps going down over the last 5 years? It also shows it will continue to fall for the next 11.

People are starting to ignore the green stuff because they are tired of hearing that they sky will fall. That is why global warming has been changed to climate change.

[PhantomPholly]

As I have frequently said, I am in favor of doing what we can reasonably do to clean up the environment. That said, the CO2=Global Warming theory is not tracking well in light of recent cooling despite great increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Irrespective of the potential or non-potential for disaster, I am fully convinced that the POLITICAL actions behind the Global Warming fear-mongering are nothing but another excuse to through slave-taxes on us. This part is really not debatable, since the actions seeking carbon taxes intend in no way to "repair" damage done nor to "prevent" future damage - they only seek to make it burdensome to live a decent life. In this light the politicians pose a much greater threat to humanity than does pollution.

[Jason Lattimer]

I agree, If they pass this cap and trade bill, it will only make things worse. It will force more jobs overseas to countries that are smart enough to not have passed a carbon tax.

As John Wayland said," I don't think you should tell people they are bad, I think you should show people there is a better way."

[david85]

Welcome back, guys

I feel the best way to deal with this issue is to call them (Al Gore and company) out on the issue of science. Thats what we are often told......that science is irrefutable, and that consensus among scientists = irrefutable science. Numbers and recorded observations are science, not consensus or projections that do not pass the test of the real world experiment.

John Christy knows what he is talking about, but if some one doesn't like him, then there is also recent science reports on NASA's website that show similar data contradicting the alarmist argument. NASA is also starting to look at solar activity as a greater contributor to climate change than previously thought since the CO2 theory doesn't seem to be enough to explain what is happening. Their recorded data also shows the cooling trend for the last 10 years that I mentioned earlier.

Until some one can call me out on these numbers with something credible and not just claim there is universal agreement, I'm certainly not going to stop talking about this.

So far, no climate model has predicted the growing antarctic ice or the decline in global temperature that we are seeing for the last decade. This means to me that the basis for the alarm is flawed and needs to be re examined very closely.

So let the debate begin

[namyzarc]

Firstly, I'd like to make a clarification:
I think that many opinions opposing climate change are based on the fact that recorded temps have been lower recently, and that, in their minds flies in the face of global WARMING.
In my opinion, their reasoning is flawed for this reason: the term "global warming" is in fact a misnomer. What will happen in this "climate change" theory, is that certain parts of the world will in fact get COLDER, while other areas will get WARMER. Cetain other areas that have high levels of rainfall may experience even higher levels of rainfall, whereas areas with drought problems will experience greater drought problems.
So, the "climate change" theory, does not claim that every place in the world will become warmer. It claims that there will be more temperature extremes and these extremes will inadvertently affect our crops, property, lives etc., with a NET AVEREAGE increase in GLOBAL temperature.

With that beeing said, of course there were, are, and always will be, large temerature fluctuations as part of the normal cycle of earths climate.
The question thus becomes: how much, if anything, is man contributing to this "climate change".
My opinion, which I've stated elsewhere is this:
I neither know or care about the answer to that question. Mankind, in an ideal world, should be contributing 0% to it. More important than reducing pollution to avert climate change, in my opinion, is the immediate reduction of polution in order to STOP human illness and Death directly related to air, water and food pollution.
The area I currently live in currently is in the top 10 in terms of highest cancer rates in the US. We have lots of Steel-mills, a couple of refineries, some of the most travelled highways in the country, etc... Move you say? Good idea. But what happens when everyone else in the more polluted areas has the same idea and also moves away... many of them to the same "cleaner" area I've moved to? So the solution CAN'T be to run away from the problem. It must be confronted. And by confronting the problem by reducing pollution, and thus reducing the immediate short-term dangers of pollution, we also, as a side-effect reduce any POTENTIAL contribution man may have to the climate. And even IF that contribution is in fact 0%, then no harm done - we've made the world a HEALTHIER place to live in.
Thoughts?