Wow I want in! can i be part of this thread. I have a lot of questions regarding climate change and no answers so i should fit right in!
My biases, like most humans, are to deny responsibility and blame other things or other people. So naturally my knee-jerk reaction to man-made Global Climate Change is to deny it, minimize it or pretend it doesn't exist.
Global Climate Change, I would argue is indisputably real. The Earth goes through as yet unpredictable, global climate changes. It has been doing so for billions of years and will do so for billions to come whether we naked apes are around to see it or not.
I have seen it argued that humans can not change things so large as Earth's climate but this argument is easily refuted by examining the history, use and subsequent banning of CFCs. To refresh your memories, Fluorocarbons were considered a great refrigeration breakthrough but later were found to be eating a hole in our ozone layer. This wasn't a good situation as we are kind of sensitive to UV light (though it may have been awesome for plant life). But we banned their use and decades later, the ozone layer is repairing itself and the hole, while still pretty large, is shrinking. Hooray for us! But it is also proof that humans can have a very large impact, both positive and negative, on our environment in a very short amount of time.
The ongoing debate however is very disturbing. The debate is now more political than scientific. Which to my mind means drawing a line in the sand so whatever political leaders say, their followers agree, regardless of the science. Anytime I see conservative and lib or commie used in a debate, i know science is nowhere to be found.
Speaking of science, as far as I can tell, all research done to support man-made global warming is based on models. Models are invaluable in supporting hypothesis and we need modeling technology in order to make predictions based on different variables. The problem with models is they are all flawed in one way or another. Either they are incomplete, plugging in the wrong variables, or some combination but suffice it to say, models are not enough to evidence to completely support a theory. In order to support a theory, the model's predictions must coincide with observable evidence. This is the point where the rubber hits the road.
There is some observable evidence that the models are close, while other observations counter the models. What does this mean? It means we do not have enough data to accurately determine whether global climate change is a threat, is man-made, is even happening in any kind of systematic and predictable way. Another words, there is not enough observable evidence to support the argument either way. We simply do not have enough data to confirm our hypothesis.
And sorry - but that is how science works - you have to be willing to live with uncertainty. Unfortunately, the emotions on both sides of the debate is obfuscating other, and to my mind more important issues that coincide with climate change proponents.
If the folks who support man-made global warming are correct, and there is evidence to support this view, then one of the most helpful things we could do is find alternative clean energy sources. Finding alternative clean and renewable energy sources seems like a worthy and noble pursuit regardless of the climate change argument.
If the folks who say man-made global warming is incorrect, and there is evidence to support this view as well, then finding clean renewable energy sources is still a good idea.
What I am trying to say is we should find common ground and attempt to resolve the very real problems facing us and not worry about who is right and who is wrong. I understand there are some compromises to be made. In my example above, the folks who are "for" global warming would need to cool their jets and not attempt to punish folks for not being "green" enough. And conversely, the folks who say global warming is BS would have to admit that maybe burning fossil fuels isn't the most cost-effective and efficient way of creating energy and money should be spent on finding alternative sources.
The benefits of this kind of research would be many-fold. Because the way we address Global Climate change could be the necessary research base for terraforming other worlds. But before we even consider something along those lines, we need to get our own house in order.
So more research and data collection and significantly less bullshit. There is nothing "proven" yet. And along those lines, science does not "prove" negatives. It is up to the person making the claim to offer proof - not the other way around.
Also note - unless I am misunderstanding what was said but:
algae does produce more oxygen than trees. in fact, phytoplankton and algae from our oceans produce about 90% of the existing oxygen. So while losing all our trees would be disastrous in many, many ways, losing oxygen would not be one of them.
