Why is this like the movie Groundhog Day?

Question

I get up here every few months and say "prove man-made global warming" and I get the same thing:

Proof of warming - though not of its cause.

Proof that humans generate CO2 - though no proof that this is a material cause of the present of several prior similar warming periods.

Denials of some of the recent warm periods - though some of you have begun to come out and say "yeah, fine, they happened, it was warmer, but this time is different" - just, without showing how it's different.

"So and so says it's us" but cannot prove it.

"This or that website says it's us" but does not prove it.

"You're just too stupid" or "closed-minded."

"You're paid by Exxon."

"You must be a Republican."

I'm just someone who doesn't feel obligated to change my lifestyle based on an unproven assertion, and who keeps asking where's the proof and keeps getting the same non-answers.

Yet you wonder why people don't just take your word for it!!!!

The question is why is it that not only is no proof offered, but every time I ask for it, the same laundry list of excuses is given?

Erinn that's silly, yes, it's been proven that driving at excessive speeds is dangerous. It HASN'T been proven that human-generated CO2 is the proximate cause of the most recent out of several warming trends within human history alone.

Wrath - you BET I'm resistant to the idea of changing my lifestyle - - this is supposed to be a free country!

Dana no, I'm not convinced my models - the ONLY thing the models have gotten right is that it would warm by another 0.2 to 0.3 degrees F over 20 years - - - but that's what happened LAST time, we had about 150 years of warm-ING and then a sustained period of another 150 years when it was WARM followed by a descent into the LIA over less than a century.

It would be like me saying "I predict the Patriots will win at least 10 games this year" or "I predict a traffic jam on the Southeast Expressway at 5:00 tonight."

They have been WAY off on what would result from this additional 0.2 to 0.3 degrees F warming - - every year the prediction changes completely for New England - - and where'd those hurricanes go? Oh, right, they failed to predict El Nino - - - well if you can't predict a regional phenomenon 3 months out, that doesn't say much for your ability to predict the climate as a whole 30 years out.

Models aren't proof. I don't think that's a wild response.

Answer 1

I'm a remarkably skeptical individual, but but neither of us can deny that climate change is happening.

Why? Honestly, I don't know. It could be manmade greenhouse gases. It could be mysterious solar activity. It could be CO2 emissions from UFOs.

That's not the point.

People constantly appear in the Religion and Spirituality forum asking others to "prove there is a god," or "prove there is no god."

The fact is that there are certain things that cannot, at this time, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, simply because something is unkown does not mean that it is unkowable.

Think of it this way: Two-hundred years ago a certain percentage of healthy young mothers would die soon after childbirth. The reasons for this were unknown. "God's will," "evil humors," and frailty were all blamed. It wasn't until the invention of the microscope and the discovery of the causes of infection that this percentage began to drop. All it took were simply sanitary precautions on the parts of doctors.

In the field of climate change it's possible, but unlikely, that we will "invent the microscope" any time soon. It's also unlikely that the reasons behind the phenomenon will be as simple as bacteria on our hands. It will probably take the lens of history to show future generations the true story of why things have been heating up.

But that's not the point either.

You seem, for some reason, to be very resistant to the idea of changing your lifestyle. Why? Just to be contrary? I don't know.

The real point is that by taking a few simple steps you can actually save yourself money. I swapped out the incandescent bulbs in my apartment for CFLs and my electric bill dropped 45%. No kidding. If I had done this when I moved into the apartment I would have saved almost five-thousand dollars.

I've been driving less. It costs me almost fifty dollars to fill up my compact SUV, so I just plan better. I make a list so I don't have to take multiple trips out to get everything I need. I don't have to fill up my tank as often and it allows me to more wisely utilize what little free time I have.

Eat locally? I'm way into food and the simple fact is that the things I get at the local farmer's markets are much better than what I used to get at the supermarket. Not for nothing, but four hour old donut from apple-farm upstate tastes hundreds of times better than two-week old donut made in factory in Ohio.

All in all whether or not people are the cause of global warming is unimportant. You and I will not live long enough to experience "Waterworld" anyway. The point is that by taking some of these "green" steps I have managed to save money and improve the quality of my own life.

Think about it.

ADDED:
You're resistant to the idea of changing your lifestyle because it's a "free country?"

This is one of the most inane things I've ever heard. Are you basically saying that you would rather have decreased quality of life than admit that someone else might be right? Don't you think that's rather childish?

Now, keep in mind I'm not trying to tell you what's "in your best interest," but if you can't see that saving hundreds of dollars a year would be good for you you've got bigger problems than global warming.

Good luck with that.

Answer 2

Well for starters, you seem to ask the question every day rather than every month.

Additionally, there's simply no way to convince you because you want absolute positive proof that you can understand, and that doesn't exist. For one thing, it's not proven that global warming is primarily caused by humans. There's simply sufficient probability that scientists are extremely confident in making this conclusion, but you clearly require 100% certainty and proof which is essentially impossible to attain.

The reason scientists are so certain of their conclusions is because they can model global warming and its causes. The models don't fit the results until you take into account human causes of global warming, and the models show that these human causes are the primary contributors.

For example, a study by NASA and the Dept. of Energy claims to be the "smoking gun" that global warming is primarily caused by humans. Their reason for concluding this?

"The 0.85-watt figure corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by the researchers’ modeling of climate change through a supercomputer, the report said.

{...}

Significantly, those emissions have increased at a rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance, the researchers said.

'There can no longer be genuine doubt that humanmade gases are the dominant cause of observed warming,' said Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 'This energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ that we have been looking for.'"

Full article linked below. The data fit their model accurately. If you're not convinced by these models, and you're not convinced by the fact that over 90% of experts are convinced by these models, then you're not going to be convinced, so stop asking for proof. That's the best you're going to get, because it's what the experts' concensus is based on - the fitting of data to climate models. There is of course lots of other evidence, but that's what makes the conclusion so convincing.

Answer 3

Regardless of the answers you focus on, plenty of scientists and students of the environment and climate see a problem. Also, THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM! Not some US partisan squabble or need for media attention. Other countries are setting laws and re-adjusting many things in regards to this issue. England is especially concerned b/c the affect it's having on the Gulf Stream is affecting their beloved gardens.
Also, the Ice Age was 100% natural. It's only common sense that putting more C2O in the air during a already 'natural' change is not helping at all.
BTW, if you are a consevative, the root is 'conserve'. Why aren't you trying?

Answer 4

Bill Murray is one of my most favoritest actors, but I haven't seen Groundhog Day in a long time. I like the part when they finally figure out that throwing water on the groundhogs only makes them multiply.

Answer 5

Why not go green and change your lifestyle for you own reasons. Those of us who don't need as much proof, don't care what reason you use. A few of mine are the independence from public utilities, the long term savings in things like solar power, the cost savings in driving an electric car. These are all thing that would enhance my life. I also believe that we will never react fast enough to change the coarse we are on, but that does not give us an excuse not to try.

Answer 6

You are absolutely right. No one has ever proven to me that driving at excessive speeds is dangerous. I am just continously given excuses--and the same ones over and over. I mean, just because the State Highway Patrol says I should drive at 65 mph or below doesn't mean it is unsafe, does it? So, more accidents happen when people drive fast...that isn't necessarily the CAUSE is it?

You are asking for "proof" in an unscientific way. No scientist or person who follows science will/can give 100% proof that something is 100% correct. They also frequently don't speak in terms of direct "causes" in instances that they are unable to control the variables. You have determined that global warming is not man made. Science, by definition, cannot give you adequate proof. Maybe you should just give up asking, and agree that we who believe in it are too stupid to avoid propaganda and lies?

Answer 7

I'm not understanding the question here.