danfrank wrote:The most recent ice age was about 20,000 years ago.. And according to this article the ice sheets in antartica are expanding which according to theory would indicate that the earth is actually cooling and not warming. I do not dispute that what we emit into the atmosphere causes damage whether short or long term. I dispute the theory that what we have done as a civilization over the past 150 years has caused permanent molecular damage to the earth. Volcanoes have been erupting on earth for 4 and a half billion years. Some of the gases dispersed from an eruption include sulfur dioxide as well as carbon dioxide which is similar in many ways to "greenhouse gases"..
This is just wrong on several levels. First, one article is just that .. one article. Things in science don't change because one person has data that seems to disagree or one opinion that differs. One person can be wrong, misread data, misunderstand. That is why major shifts generally require multiple liines of research, data, etc. Even in the case of truly earth-shattering Noble research, it might start with one person having an idea and some tentative results, but before it is truly accepted, there are multiple levels of analysis, repeats of tests, etc. Only then is data accepted. In those cases where repeats are simply not possible (a particular volcanoe might only erupt once), scientist try to collect as much information from as many instruments as possible and check, recheck, verify, multiple times everything prior to accepting any conclusion. If they see something strange, the FIRST thing they think is "let's recheck my calculations", then "let's make sure the equipment is accurate"...etc. Even then, if it does not cooincide with other data it is considered an "anomoly". A random piece that just does not fit and no one really understands why, though most often it is error of some kind. (and yes, there are people who study just those anomolies).
Second, your conclusion is not really and truly what the data in the article show. It is what some people wish to believe.
As for your comparison to eruptions. Yes, volcanoes have been erupting and they have been severely impacting human beings as long as we have been on this planet, other life before we got here. Data from some eruptions is partially what is giving scientists clues as to what might happen in the near future. Far from disputing their theories, that is very much part of the data that is taken into consideration.
The REAL problem here is not that global warming (though frankly, I prefer the term "global wierding"), it is that the internet now gives people the illusion of seeking truth and knowledge, with no filter at all to weed out the garbage from reality.
The truth is that you can take ANY theory, any fact in science and you will find people who disagree. Many times you will find people who PhD's or other letters behind thier names. Sometimes they got those "credentials" from "degree mills". Sometimes they got a degree in a completely unrelated field. Sometimes they are legitimate scientists who have, well gone a bit insane. Work in a major university and secretaries spend a lot of time fielding calls and letters from crackpots.
BUT, here is the thing. Science is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of discovery and research. There are things undecided, but you cannot simply say "I like this data set and not that becuase I find it more convenient". You have to challange the way the data was collected, the process by which it was analyzed. To do a thorough job, you need to read not just the article, but every article it cites (for methodologies, etc.) and then not only verify that each technique, piece of equipment, etc was used correctly, but also that the data is actual truly presented, etc. Often times the greatest errors are in analysis of data. Its like the old joke "where is the most dangerous place, statistically speaking?" Answer:-bed, because more people die there. Superficially, correct, but not really. In really it is an intentional misunderstanding of statistics. OK for a joke, but not reality.
Many, many, many things put forward as "facts" through the internet, particularly in conservative websites, takes such liberties.
The Earth IS warming, overall. That is a fact, plain and simple. That ice sheets in some areas are expanding (not even questioning the truth in your data, notice), does not dispute that. In fact, one of the prime results of the Global wierding might well be a new ice age in Europe as the Jet Stream ceases to flow. It could also be flooding and other effects. We can look at the Earth's history to get some clues, but we don't really know.
The balance of Earth is like a rubber band. You can stretch it and pull it almost endlessly and the rubber band snaps right back. BUT, you stretch it for a long time and eventually it stops rebounding. Add heat and it gets weak. Pull it just a tad too far and it breaks. We don't fully understand all of these processes, but we do know that change is almost always bad for us. Look at the Dust Bowl in the US, for example. Look at the effects of pollution, look at the Sahara desert ... etc. We don't know exactly what will happen, but we know that any big change is almost certainly bad for us human beings. It will particularly be bad for business, economies. (which is why many of the really big corporations are spending significant resources on their own research).
