Is Global Warming real?

[Morrus]

(One thing that always makes me slightly cynical about these things, though, is that the people shouting the loudest warnings are generally the same people who get paid to research the issue. It's in their interests to keep the money flowing in to fund them.)

Obviously. Why would someone not researching it shout a loud warning?

The only people who *can* warn you are those researching it.

So when the people who are researching are the ones warning you...

You'd believe someone who hasn't researched it over someone who has?

Oh, logic!

 

[Umbran]

This might be a good question for the Physics AMA, but if the half life of DNA is 520 years, how does a tree get to be a 1000 years old?

While the tree is alive, it has mechanisms to repair and maintain its DNA. When the tree stops living, those mechanisms stop functioning.

 

[Umbran]

(One thing that always makes me slightly cynical about these things, though, is that the people shouting the loudest warnings are generally the same people who get paid to research the issue. It's in their interests to keep the money flowing in to fund them.)

Um, dude, it takes major education to be able to do research. That costs money - most often debt-financed these days. And, once they are educated, the researcher needs to buy food, housing, and all that. So, yes, researchers must be paid to do research. Just like any other professional.

Consider your point the next time funding for colleges, universities and scientific research comes up in your local and national elections. The more that is publicly funded, the less they will need corporate funding.

 

[juanlb]

I believe it's real.

 

[Scorpio616]

Oh, there is change, but big thing is it is really hard to empirically prove how much is done by man vs how much the natural cycles of Earth's climate are in flux. Make no mistake, scientific research is politics, whether it's a researcher bought off by Big oil, or a marine biologist trying to tout their agenda.

I'm more concerned with folks figuring out a way to let potential super volcanoes blow off some 'steam' to avoid catastrophic eruptions in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh, there is change, but big thing is it is really hard to empirically prove how much is done by man vs how much the natural cycles of Earth's climate are in flux.

From what I have heard, not really. The natural factors are in a cooling cycle, not a heating cycle.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

Which would mean they have acted as a brake on global warming, meaning this chart would look worse, but for those factors.

 

[Scorpio616]

Your source gives me a chuckle.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even if you don't believe man is the primary cause of the warming trend, that is no excuse for inaction.

The Pentagon's 20 page report on the effects of climate change identifies no causes. However, the report DOES identify many reasons for concern linked to climate change- compromise or destruction of military assets, political instability, supply chain uncertainty, etc.- and outlines certain responses they intend to take in order to mitigate those concerns.

 

[Umbran]

Your source gives me a chuckle.

It isn't like that graph was made by the source - it was only *reported* by the source.

But at this point, the source comment is a little facile. 97% of published papers on the topic (which is thousands of papers) agree on the source of the problem. Take your pick of sources, at this point, they'll agree, because the numbers are all pointing the same way.

Yes, politics impacts science. But scientists are not all of one political stripe - they don't generally agree on basis of political leanings. And, it is in general in their own best interests to be the guy who proves others wrong. So, you don't get this level of consensus without evidence.

 

[Kramodlog]

or a marine biologist trying to tout their agenda.

What is there agenda?

All I think of is George Costanza trying to get into a woman's pants.