Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hazaanko on October 21, 2007, 04:52:19 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o
Politics of fear.
-
Here's the part that doesn't make sense...that the one guy on the YouTube video back several months ago makes perfect sense on. There's four possibilities:
1) Global warming is caused by us and we do something
2) Global warming is caused by us and we do nothing
3) Global warming is not caused by us and we do something
4) Global warming is not caused by us and we do nothing
Only one of those basic solutions makes logical sense. According to this video everyone agrees that the temperatures are going up (and judging by the 25c record breaking day we had up here thats for sure :)) so something is happening and worst case scenario that we cut back our emissions and we had little or nothing to do with the process anyways...not too much harm. Maybe economic harm...maybe...but thats an argument and a line thats been drawn by people like this. Helping the environment instead of hurting it does not have to mean that it will hurt us economically. Some companies are already starting to gain a competitive edge by investing in more efficient technology...so I have hope :)
I guess here's the thing...temperatures on the rise will do something...anything....I don't know...who cares who or what is to blame. What do we do about it?
-
No matter what fewer emissions are better because that means less pollution.
-
There's also the argument that we do nothing about it since whatever we do will have no effect whatsoever anyways. The man-made global warming theory is not the same thing as man-made pollution. I'm all about cleaner air, but bad science is bad science. Time and attention as resources are limited. You put those resources into bad science and it is utterly wasted. You need good science FIRST. (Oh, by the way, we've been having record LOW temperatures all over the place where I live for the past three months... to say that a certain day, year, or even decade FEELS hot/cold is not even a blip on the radar in the big picture). Even if the earth -is- warming, it doesn't mean that it will always continue to warm. What if we do figure out how to artificially cool the planet... then THAT becomes the problem? The -fact- is... the debate is still open, and we have much much much much much more to learn about the earth's weather system before we start making such huge claims about it.
P.S. I love it how people change the topic when confronted with a hard debate.
-
This just reminds me of something... Di-hydrogen monoxide is to blame!!! It's a greenhouse gas! It's everywhere! It kills thousands per year! It was linked to many deaths from the tsunami! :rolleyes:
Here's another angle on global warming: What are all these things running around, constantly radiating heat even when they're doing nothing? Oh yeah, humans. There are only 6.5 billion space heaters roaming around the earth now. Hmmm?
-
Concrete, asphalt, and various other types of stone hold heat very well.
Our cities are comprised of lots and lots of these materials.
Our cities are big. We have many paved roadways.
Couldn't that be a contributor as well? Both directly and indirectly?
-
Here's another angle on global warming: What are all these things running around, constantly radiating heat even when they're doing nothing? Oh yeah, humans. There are only 6.5 billion space heaters roaming around the earth now. Hmmm?
*points to the other several million species of animals that have existed for millions of years*
-
*points to the other several million species of animals that have existed for millions of years*
Honestly, I was going for humor, but I submit that no other species has had the population explosion humans have seen in the last few hundred years, either. Add in Swantz' thoughts and you've got the temperature increase all without factoring any greenhouse effect at all.
Kill all humans and the planet will be just fine!
-
I could also say that the lack of dinosaurs makes the Earth warmer but it still doesn't make sense.
The ammount of humans warming the earth adds an insignificant ammount of heat when compared to other sources. Also the fact that the populations of other big warm-blooded animals seem to be decreasing adds further doubt to that theory.
-
I usually regret posting in these.
Global warming is a bit of a misnomer, the effects tend to be average higher temperatures, but that means more "energy" in the system, which means, for weather, more extremes. So some places are hotter, some places are colder (at times) and storms are bigger and nastier when they happen.
And, mind you I have been out of the science game for a while, but last i checked, the only people still "debating" this were the politicians, the scientists have largely been in agreenment for going on 20 years. Lots of good science, frankly, to back up that its happening. And a fair amount of it pointing out we may indeed have something to do with it.
The definition of "good science" can't be "scientists who tell me what I want to hear."
-
Concrete, asphalt, and various other types of stone hold heat very well.
Our cities are comprised of lots and lots of these materials.
Our cities are big. We have many paved roadways.
Couldn't that be a contributor as well? Both directly and indirectly?
Indeed, it's called the heat island effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island).
As UHIs are characterized by increased temperature, they can potentially increase the magnitude and duration of heat waves within cities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)
Mostly it causes slightly warmer average temps and popup showers, but it's enough to skew the personal experience of the reporters in Manhattan since they live in the middle of a literal heat island.
I think we all wonder how Stossel keeps his job. Maybe they consider him an eccentric, like Andy Rooney, and so they figure not enough people will take him seriously to matter.
-
Just to be clear before I'm misunderstood.
I do agree that greenhouse gases are the major contributor to the warming effect we're experiencing. Just wanted to point out there are all kinds of small contributors, and over time, that adds up.
-
I don't think the heat island effect has much if anything to do with global warming either. I think it's a localized effect. I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned in the context of global warming either, though it must have been somewhere.
It seems smog and car exhaust must have an effect in cities too.
-
There's also the argument that we do nothing about it since whatever we do will have no effect whatsoever anyways. The man-made global warming theory is not the same thing as man-made pollution. I'm all about cleaner air, but bad science is bad science. Time and attention as resources are limited. You put those resources into bad science and it is utterly wasted. You need good science FIRST.
Could you define what this 'bad science' is, and where you've seen it? Surely you're not going to rely on a fluffy ABC "special report" for first hand info? I'll be first to admit that I haven't read into the issue as much as I probably should, but the only bad science i've seen has been used by die-hard fanatics on either side. So, yeah, could you clarify that? :)
Even if the earth -is- warming, it doesn't mean that it will always continue to warm. What if we do figure out how to artificially cool the planet... then THAT becomes the problem? The -fact- is... the debate is still open, and we have much much much much much more to learn about the earth's weather system before we start making such huge claims about it.
I like how you counter seemingly wild assertions with a barrage of your own wild assertions. As I see it, the real problem with this whole insipid issue is that nobody is willing to make a decision. I'm getting to the point where I don't really care which side our leaders come down on, as long as somebody has the balls to actually make a choice instead of sitting there screaming "but there's still debate!" with their thumbs planted firmly up their overpayed asses. There's always going to be debate!
Saying "we need to know more" isn't an acceptible excuse. If there's one thing worse than a die-hard fanatic, it's someone who doesn't have the balls to come down on one side or the other.
P.S. I love it how people change the topic when confronted with a hard debate.
Are you referring to IceFire's post? If you are, you didn't exactly give him much to go on for this so-called "hard debate". You posted a fluff-piece by an American news service, accompanied by a rather cryptic statement that could be read umpteen ways, so what did you expect him to come up with?
-
I usually regret posting in these.
Global warming is a bit of a misnomer, the effects tend to be average higher temperatures, but that means more "energy" in the system, which means, for weather, more extremes. So some places are hotter, some places are colder (at times) and storms are bigger and nastier when they happen.
And, mind you I have been out of the science game for a while, but last i checked, the only people still "debating" this were the politicians, the scientists have largely been in agreenment for going on 20 years. Lots of good science, frankly, to back up that its happening. And a fair amount of it pointing out we may indeed have something to do with it.
The definition of "good science" can't be "scientists who tell me what I want to hear."
Even if the 'temperature divergence' were true for the global warming theory, it would just go further to disprove it altogether. I remember they really tried to push the whole Katrina and hurricane thing on the global warming debate. What's funny about it is that since then we have had extremely tame storm systems since then - one of the tamest periods in history. If you watch the news, you'll notice that the same people who tried to put blame on global warming for Katrina/etc. are now NAMING and CLASSIFYING sub-tropical storms as full tropical storms. That 'science' pretty much died out as quickly as it was created.
It seems you have been out of the science game.... politicians really aren't debating it anymore. I'm assuming you didn't watch the video based on your comments.
What you're not being told... and really WHY you believe that "scientists have largely been in agreement for ... 20 years" is because you're never been told that there are actually TONS of scientists that do NOT agree with it... and a lot of these so called global warming scientists aren't really scientists at all. We're talking about nut-job pirates like Greenpeace (and Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore). Basically the same people that pushed the whole Acid Rain and O-Zone depletion thing. Guess what!?!?!? Both debunked. But you won't hear about it on the MSM. "Acid Rain" really doesn't do anything, and we don't have a clue in hell why the O-Zone is fluctuating anymore.
Look, I'm all for alternative energy sources and cleaner air. Despite what they teach you on the MWM and in liberal universities, us fascist, racist, bigoted, hate-mongering, homophobic, and zionistic Republicans are all about becoming less dependent on oil and foreign energy. But the U.S. companies are so freaking unbelievably overtaxed right now they can barely make enough to put any kind of substantial research or resources into it. I wouldn't be mentioning this, except for the fact that many politicians use it as an excuse to TAX US MORE. Yeah.... I'm sure that will help....
Junk science and overhyped science is not the way to go. You certainly make a good, albeit completely obvious, point Inquisitor: "The definition of 'good science' can't be 'scientists who tell me what I want to hear."
-
It seems you have been out of the science game.... politicians really aren't debating it anymore. I'm assuming you didn't watch the video based on your comments.
Politicians always debate, it's what they do. In fact, I just watched a debate last night between the two main candidates in the race for Australian Prime Minister, and Global Warming was a large talking-point. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the more contentious issues in modern politics, so to claim that "they really aren't debating it anymore" isn't entirely accurate.
What you're not being told... and really WHY you believe that "scientists have largely been in agreement for ... 20 years" is because you're never been told that there are actually TONS of scientists that do NOT agree with it... and a lot of these so called global warming scientists aren't really scientists at all. We're talking about nut-job pirates like Greenpeace (and Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore).
But those non-scientists are simply the vocal minority. I hate to drag up the topic, but people constantly saying "but there are so many scientists who don't agree that you just never hear about" seems oddly similar to Creationists who constantly shout the same thing about the theory of Evolution.
Basically the same people that pushed the whole Acid Rain and O-Zone depletion thing. Guess what!?!?!? Both debunked. But you won't hear about it on the MSM. "Acid Rain" really doesn't do anything, and we don't have a clue in hell why the O-Zone is fluctuating anymore.
Ozone depletion? Wasn't that CFCs? And when the amount of CFCs used in products took a nosedive, the depletion of Ozone seemed to slow down and even stabilize? The whole rigmarole was a bit before my time, so I might be mistaken.
Look, I'm all for alternative energy sources and cleaner air. Despite what they teach you on the MWM and in liberal universities, us fascist, racist, bigoted, hate-mongering, homophobic, and zionistic Republicans are all about becoming less dependent on oil and foreign energy. But the U.S. companies are so freaking unbelievably overtaxed right now they can barely make enough to put any kind of substantial research or resources into it. I wouldn't be mentioning this, except for the fact that many politicians use it as an excuse to TAX US MORE. Yeah.... I'm sure that will help....
Do you really need to bring partisanship into this debate? I mean, really. This issue is a bit bigger than American political parties. United States =/= The World.
Junk science and overhyped science is not the way to go.
Then why'd you post that ABC fluff-piece up there?
-
Could you define what this 'bad science' is, and where you've seen it? Surely you're not going to rely on a fluffy ABC "special report" for first hand info? I'll be first to admit that I haven't read into the issue as much as I probably should, but the only bad science i've seen has been used by die-hard fanatics on either side. So, yeah, could you clarify that? :)
Bad science like what was already given in the link. The polar bear thing is bad science, the C02 correlating with rise in temperature is bad science, the antarctic isn't actually warming... shall I go on? I could just give you a gigantic amount of reading material concerning these things and a lot more... or you could just look for them yourself. But you're not really here to ask real questions are you?
I'm totally with you on the die-hard thing. You have to accept, however, that you yourself are very die hard about your own stance, whatever that may be.
I like how you counter seemingly wild assertions with a barrage of your own wild assertions. As I see it, the real problem with this whole insipid issue is that nobody is willing to make a decision. I'm getting to the point where I don't really care which side our leaders come down on, as long as somebody has the balls to actually make a choice instead of sitting there screaming "but there's still debate!" with their thumbs planted firmly up their overpayed asses. There's always going to be debate!
Saying "we need to know more" isn't an acceptible excuse. If there's one thing worse than a die-hard fanatic, it's someone who doesn't have the balls to come down on one side or the other.
Making another wild assertion was exactly my point. I'm glad you read between the lines and saw the humor. (its called sarcasm by the way - I keep forgetting not everybody understands it)
I think you're missing a lot of the good stuff. Its not that people are saying JUST "but there's still debate!"... but that there is actually really freaking good reasons to still have the debate. Like: oh I don't know.... that man-made global warming just might possibly be totally and completely FALSE? And that there is actually extremely strong evidence to suggest so.
Are you referring to IceFire's post? If you are, you didn't exactly give him much to go on for this so-called "hard debate". You posted a fluff-piece by an American news service, accompanied by a rather cryptic statement that could be read umpteen ways, so what did you expect him to come up with?
I was referring to how whenever this is brought up, people ignore the evidence against it and change the topic pollution.
-
It seems you have been out of the science game.... politicians really aren't debating it anymore. I'm assuming you didn't watch the video based on your comments.
Politicians always debate, it's what they do. In fact, I just watched a debate last night between the two main candidates in the race for Australian Prime Minister, and Global Warming was a large talking-point. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the more contentious issues in modern politics, so to claim that "they really aren't debating it anymore" isn't entirely accurate.
What you're not being told... and really WHY you believe that "scientists have largely been in agreement for ... 20 years" is because you're never been told that there are actually TONS of scientists that do NOT agree with it... and a lot of these so called global warming scientists aren't really scientists at all. We're talking about nut-job pirates like Greenpeace (and Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore).
But those non-scientists are simply the vocal minority. I hate to drag up the topic, but people constantly saying "but there are so many scientists who don't agree that you just never hear about" seems oddly similar to Creationists who constantly shout the same thing about the theory of Evolution.
Basically the same people that pushed the whole Acid Rain and O-Zone depletion thing. Guess what!?!?!? Both debunked. But you won't hear about it on the MSM. "Acid Rain" really doesn't do anything, and we don't have a clue in hell why the O-Zone is fluctuating anymore.
Ozone depletion? Wasn't that CFCs? And when the amount of CFCs used in products took a nosedive, the depletion of Ozone seemed to slow down and even stabilize? The whole rigmarole was a bit before my time, so I might be mistaken.
Look, I'm all for alternative energy sources and cleaner air. Despite what they teach you on the MWM and in liberal universities, us fascist, racist, bigoted, hate-mongering, homophobic, and zionistic Republicans are all about becoming less dependent on oil and foreign energy. But the U.S. companies are so freaking unbelievably overtaxed right now they can barely make enough to put any kind of substantial research or resources into it. I wouldn't be mentioning this, except for the fact that many politicians use it as an excuse to TAX US MORE. Yeah.... I'm sure that will help....
Do you really need to bring partisanship into this debate? I mean, really. This issue is a bit bigger than American political parties. United States =/= The World.
Junk science and overhyped science is not the way to go.
Then why'd you post that ABC fluff-piece up there?
#1: My bad. I just haven't heard any politicians here in the U.S. debate about it very much at all. Its really not something that is being brought up in the 2008 race here.
#2: On the contrary, those non-scientists are all I hear. They're being quoted everywhere and get their own television programs ALL THE TIME. But again, that's just here in the U.S.
-Please don't bring the creationist thing into this.... ugh. That was/is about religion vs science. This is science vs science. We can debate that another time.
#3: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/will-media-report-flaw-manmade-ozone-hole-consensus
••There's a quick thing on the ozone topic for you. Mind you, some of the same people that originally brought up the ozone depletion thing are the ones commenting in the article. Long read. That should keep you busy for a while. I could find a couple more articles on it if you'd like?
#4: Again, by bad. I'll put it in next time when its just something I observe in the U.S. I am a stupid American afterall. I can't even point out my own country on a map. (sarcasm again, for the culturally inclined)
#5: I put the "ABC fluff-piece" up there because at least here in the U.S. a news story like that is so incredibly rare I was completely blown away that it was even put on television. Parts of it may have been junk science, but its stuff you just don't see or hear very often. I'm willing to bet its stuff that you've never heard before, Mefustae.
-
'The definition of "good science" can't be "scientists who tell me what I want to hear."'
I like this, I like this very much, anyone who considers themselves to be a scientist should always check the possibilities that they do not like. especially if these possibilities, go against a person's beleifes or positions. it is at the core of science to be be critical of what you hold most dear, this is science's true streigth, the ability to turn on a dime and abandon old theories when the evidence does not support them. so it does sadden, and in fact unsettle me to see that politics have managed to make man kind's greatest achievement, turn in on it'self.
when ever this subject gets brought up, the question it's self is almost never addressed directly. many people have what I guess you could call a misguided sense of responsibility which makes it easy for them to perceive human causes for damage when only circumstantial evidence points to it. having been raised by people who were among the first humans to realize the finite nature of the planet. children of solders in a cultural war between those who did not see or perhaps care about the consequences of there actions, and those who realised that humanity does have the ability to bring about great damage to the earth. anger ran deep and the battle was hard fought, but in the end the war was won, it is now believed that teaching our children about responsible management of our worlds limited resources is as important as teaching them how to get along with other people, or make a living for themselves. there is now an entire generation of people who, possibly for the first time understand how important caring for the earth is, an whole generation who know there is only so much coal, that forests take many years to regrow, and understand about how dumping poison into a stream will eventually filter back to them. as a triumph of science, countless melenia of harmful superstition and tradition like clear cutting forests and stream dumping were overthoughen in just a few short decades.
but unfortunately this triumph is short lived, because science is a creation of man, but not his natural state. now adults, these people perceive anyone who descents against any of the established ills humanity has wrought upon the earth as the enemy, the enemy who denies the obvius harm he is doing either out of ignorance or greed. much as generations of Greeks were told tales of Leonidas and the Persians, this generation grew up listening to captain planet versus the forces of pollution and human greed, unwilling to allow the hard fought battles of there parents to be lost they are quick to attack anyone who sounds like they might be trying to form an argument for shrugging off shepherding earth responsibly in favor a lazier greedier path. it is I suppose a better way than the one we had before, but I think there is still room for improvement.
so by this point you may be wondering what this has to do with global warming. well, it should have nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it has everything to do with it. if I ask the question "are humans responsible for global warming" I can not expect anyone to give me an unbiased answer, in fact I can hardly expect a scientific answer at all. before anyone looks at the data behind it they start looking up the potential consequences, and I'll get an answer like "what if we do nothing?". well that's a fine way to live as a general rule, you are concerned about to consequences of your actions, but it does not answer the question, 'are we to blame?'. specifically for THIS one, it's an isolated question, there are enough reasons to cut back on emissions a thousand times over. like you, I don't want dioxin in my water, I don't want mercury in my fish, I don't want acid in my rain, and I am quite happy with the thought of ozone layer's continued existence. but unlike many of you, I am unconvinced that the global warming that is happening is caused in great effect as result of mankind's industrialization.
now, this may anger or upset many of you. you are thinking what sort of an idiot can I be? carbon dioxide, as a green house gas, retains heat and humans are producing a **** ton of it, how can this not be effecting the earth? well first off I did not say it wasn't having an effect I just don't think it is as profound as you do, but more importantly, I think you have a misunderstanding about the stage that the temperature of the earth is standing on.
years ago, I accepted this line of thought, the earth is getting hotter, we are makeing stuff that can make it hotter, therefore we are responsible for the earth getting hotter. but then I started seeing the history of earth's climate. ice cores give about half a million years worth of information. if you go back about 12,000 years you see the earth is a much colder place, the graph between then and now is quite dramatic in fact, but this is before humans began to do anything significant. if you go further, you will find temperatures gradually get warmer and warmer until they are even hotter than they are now, then it suddenly falls out again. scale the scope back to a few hundred thousand years and a pattern seems to emerge, there is a sudden warming period followed by long periods of cold. we seem to be in one of the warming periods. interestingly the other warming periods all seem to be a bit warmer. using deep sea sediment cores, global temperatures for the last five million years have been calculated, these are much more interesting, in addition to the wild variations caused by the glacial cycle there is a clear trend the further back in time you go, the warmer it gets. even more interesting is radiometric measurements have been used to gauge a rough estimate of temperatures back as far as the dinosaurs, the measurements show earth is in a historically cold period right now, once you go back more than five million years today's temperatures are about as cold as it could get, the earth was 12 degrees hotter 50 million years ago than it is now, extending this technique out to the last 500 million years shows a number of ice ages, and it looks like we may be coming to the end of one right now.
of course, the issue isn't simply about the earth getting hotter, it's about humans causing the earth to get hotter, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is about 800 billion tons IIRC, and humans are believed to be responsible for about half of that. sence we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the air in 200 years, and the temperature has shot up it seems that there is a causal relationship here, but is it? the temperature has been shooting up for a long time, it only stumbled a little over the last thousand years ago, as the temperature got warmer humans boomed, our crops grew, our cattle flourish, and we had time to tinker with machines. the fact that we hit the industrial revolution just as the earth started warming up isn't totally coincidence, had the little ice age continued, I doubt we would have developed the technology we did or at least as fast as we did.
but disregarding that for a moment, we are currently responsible for fully half the CO2 in the air, that should count for something, right? well it is undoubtedly causing some additional warming, but CO2 as it is currently, only represents less than half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, and it's not even that strong of a greenhouse gas, water vapor for example is far more effective and far more abundant, CO2 is only responsible for 6% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is at historically low concentrations. wait, what's that? you don't believe me? isotopic ratio analysis has consistently shown that CO2 levels have been almost unanimously higher than they are now, during the time of the dinosaurs, it was 10 times as high, before that it was as high as 30 times the current concentration, if you look at the timelines you will see some of these high concentrations correlated with ice ages, so even if CO2 wasn't at all time lows, it still is clearly not a dominant green house gas.
now all of this does not prove anything, but it does give me some perspective. we know that the green house gases we are emitting are capable of retaining heat, but they make up a fairly small percentage of our atmosphere, the effects that our portion have I do not believe represent something unprecidented in earth's history. and the more I look at longer term temperatures the less I see us causing major changes. even if you go by the wildest projections the temperatures are still well within earth's long term norm.
and with this mighty blast of text typed after inq's post without reading anything that has happened since, I enter the frey.
-
Concrete, asphalt, and various other types of stone hold heat very well.
Our cities are comprised of lots and lots of these materials.
Our cities are big. We have many paved roadways.
Couldn't that be a contributor as well? Both directly and indirectly?
Yes, cities hold alot more heat than an empty country side, and sometimes the effect can be huge. I live off in the country, in winter I may get down below 17 degrees, while Anniston or Birmingham only reaches the mid-30s.
Now to the effect of messing up our atmosphere, no, but the can play big with weather data and record highs and lows. As a city that doubled it's size would get hotter now than 50 years ago.
However, the coolest thing I've heard of is that very large cities like Atlanta can actually become a thunderstorm focal point in summer, as they can give a little more rising air then the surrounding area.
-
'The definition of "good science" can't be "scientists who tell me what I want to hear."'
I like this, I like this very much, anyone who considers themselves to be a scientist should always check the possibilities that they do not like. especially if these possibilities, go against a person's beleifes or positions. it is at the core of science to be be critical of what you hold most dear, this is science's true streigth, the ability to turn on a dime and abandon old theories when the evidence does not support them. so it does sadden, and in fact unsettle me to see that politics have managed to make man kind's greatest achievement, turn in on it'self.
when ever this subject gets brought up, the question it's self is almost never addressed directly. many people have what I guess you could call a misguided sense of responsibility which makes it easy for them to perceive human causes for damage when only circumstantial evidence points to it. having been raised by people who were among the first humans to realize the finite nature of the planet. children of solders in a cultural war between those who did not see or perhaps care about the consequences of there actions, and those who realised that humanity does have the ability to bring about great damage to the earth. anger ran deep and the battle was hard fought, but in the end the war was won, it is now believed that teaching our children about responsible management of our worlds limited resources is as important as teaching them how to get along with other people, or make a living for themselves. there is now an entire generation of people who, possibly for the first time understand how important caring for the earth is, an whole generation who know there is only so much coal, that forests take many years to regrow, and understand about how dumping poison into a stream will eventually filter back to them. as a triumph of science, countless melenia of harmful superstition and tradition like clear cutting forests and stream dumping were overthoughen in just a few short decades.
but unfortunately this triumph is short lived, because science is a creation of man, but not his natural state. now adults, these people perceive anyone who descents against any of the established ills humanity has wrought upon the earth as the enemy, the enemy who denies the obvius harm he is doing either out of ignorance or greed. much as generations of Greeks were told tales of Leonidas and the Persians, this generation grew up listening to captain planet versus the forces of pollution and human greed, unwilling to allow the hard fought battles of there parents to be lost they are quick to attack anyone who sounds like they might be trying to form an argument for shrugging off shepherding earth responsibly in favor a lazier greedier path. it is I suppose a better way than the one we had before, but I think there is still room for improvement.
so by this point you may be wondering what this has to do with global warming. well, it should have nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it has everything to do with it. if I ask the question "are humans responsible for global warming" I can not expect anyone to give me an unbiased answer, in fact I can hardly expect a scientific answer at all. before anyone looks at the data behind it they start looking up the potential consequences, and I'll get an answer like "what if we do nothing?". well that's a fine way to live as a general rule, you are concerned about to consequences of your actions, but it does not answer the question, 'are we to blame?'. specifically for THIS one, it's an isolated question, there are enough reasons to cut back on emissions a thousand times over. like you, I don't want dioxin in my water, I don't want mercury in my fish, I don't want acid in my rain, and I am quite happy with the thought of ozone layer's continued existence. but unlike many of you, I am unconvinced that the global warming that is happening is caused in great effect as result of mankind's industrialization.
now, this may anger or upset many of you. you are thinking what sort of an idiot can I be? carbon dioxide, as a green house gas, retains heat and humans are producing a **** ton of it, how can this not be effecting the earth? well first off I did not say it wasn't having an effect I just don't think it is as profound as you do, but more importantly, I think you have a misunderstanding about the stage that the temperature of the earth is standing on.
years ago, I accepted this line of thought, the earth is getting hotter, we are makeing stuff that can make it hotter, therefore we are responsible for the earth getting hotter. but then I started seeing the history of earth's climate. ice cores give about half a million years word th of information. if you go back about 12,000 years you see the earth is a much colder place, the graph between then and now is quite dramatic in fact, but this is before humans began to do anything insignificant. if you go further, you will find temperatures gradually get warmer and warmer until they are even hotter than they are now, then it suddenly falls out again. scale the scope back to a few hundred thousand years and a pattern seems to emerge, there is a sudden warming period followed by long periods of cold. we seem to be in one of the warming periods. interestingly the other warming periods all seem to be a bit warmer. using deep sea sediment cores, global temperatures for the last five million years have been calculated, these are much more interesting, in addition to the wild variations caused by the glacial cycle there is a clear trend the further back in time you go, the warmer it gets. even more interesting is radiometric measurements have been used to gauge a rough estimate of temperatures back as far as the dinosaurs, the measurements show earth is in a historically cold period right now, once you go back more than five million years today's temperatures are about as cold as it could get, the earth was 12 degrees hotter 50 million years ago than it is now, extending this technique out to the last 500 million years shows a number of ice ages, and it looks like we may be coming to the end of one right now.
of course, the issue isn't simply about the earth getting hotter, it's about humans causing the earth to get hotter, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is about 800 billion tons IIRC, and humans are believed to be responsible for about half of that. sence we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the air in 200 years, and the temperature has shot up it seems that there is a causal relationship here, but is it? the temperature has been shooting up for a long time, it only stumbled a little over the last thousand years ago, as the temperature got warmer humans boomed, our crops grew, our cattle flourish, and we had time to tinker with machines. the fact that we hit the industrial revolution just as the earth started warming up isn't totally coincidence, had the little ice age continued, I doubt we would have developed the technology we did or at least as fast as we did.
but disregarding that for a moment, we are currently responsible for fully half the CO2 in the air, that should count for something, right? well it is undoubtedly causing some additional warming, but CO2 as it is currently, only represents less than half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, and it's not even that strong of a greenhouse gas, water vapor for example is far more effective and far more abundant, CO2 is only responsible for 6% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is at historically low concentrations. wait, what's that? you don't believe me? isotopic ratio analysis has consistently shown that CO2 levels have been almost unanimously higher than they are now, during the time of the dinosaurs, it was 10 times as high, before that it was as high as 30 times the current concentration, if you look at the timelines you will see some of these high concentrations correlated with ice ages, so even if CO2 wasn't at all time lows, it still is clearly not a dominant green house gas.
now all of this does not prove anything, but it does give me some perspective. we know that the green house gases we are emitting are capable of retaining heat, but they make up a fairly small percentage of our atmosphere, the effects that our portion have I do not believe represent something unprecidented in earth's history. and the more I look at longer term temperatures the less I see us causing major changes. even if you go by the wildest projections the temperatures are still well within earth's long term norm.
and with this mighty blast of text typed after inq's post without reading anything that has happened since, I enter the frey.
Wow, I have to say, I am impressed. :p
It is one thing to warm the atmosphere slightly(that is if we are to blame for a little of it), but it is a far,far,far other thing to mess up the climate with a little bit of warming in the lower levels or the atmosphere.
-
*WALL OF MOTHER ****ING TEXT*
Well said.
-
the only possible way the heat island effect could be makeing a significant effect on earth's recorded temperature would be something along the lines of a large portion of the temperature recording devices being in cities. I doubt this has actually caused major discrepancies, though it might be interesting to look into.
-
the only possible way the heat island effect could be makeing a significant effect on earth's recorded temperature would be something along the lines of a large portion of the temperature recording devices being in cities. I doubt this has actually caused major discrepancies, though it might be interesting to look into.
Yeah, that was what I was referring too. The thing that is debated is whether or not the ones recording and analyzing the data are giving enough effect to the heat-island effect vs. normal high temps. And when I say debated, I mean fiercely debated.
EDIT, btw guys, some of you might want to pick up "State of Fear", if you are on either side of the GW debate. Not only does it have some good hard science in it, it's a very good novel too.
-
of course, you realize, if that idea were to gain ground you'd have people calling to bulldoze all cities, right? :D
but I would be VERY suprised if this actually had an effect of any kind, for one, the temperature rise has been recorded all over the place, some places are getting colder, but most are getting hotter, most of the temperature readings we get are done from satalites so it would be virtually imposable for there to be a localized phenomenon like that to skew the results of the people who do nothing but try to get the earth's temperature, and the temp change maps I've seen show no huge localized spikes around cities. and the portion of the earth that is urban is actually quite minute, so I seriously doubt it would effect the actual temperature of the earth. now if some amiture group or a media organization tried compiling there own data I could see this being an issue, but scientists are smart enough not to fall for this sort of error.
it is called a heat "island" for a reason.
-
of course, you realize, if that idea were to gain ground you'd have people calling to bulldoze all cities, right? :D
but I would be VERY suprised if this actually had an effect of any kind, for one, the temperature rise has been recorded all over the place, some places are getting colder, but most are getting hotter, most of the temperature readings we get are done from satalites so it would be virtually imposable for there to be a localized phenomenon like that to skew the results of the people who do nothing but try to get the earth's temperature, and the temp change maps I've seen show no huge localized spikes around cities. and the portion of the earth that is urban is actually quite minute, so I seriously doubt it would effect the actual temperature of the earth. now if some amiture group or a media organization tried compiling there own data I could see this being an issue, but scientists are smart enough not to fall for this sort of error.
it is called a heat "island" for a reason.
Heh, I would not be surprised should someone think of that. :p
Now I'm not much of a climate scientist, sorry that is too long and too slow for this fast minded weather guy who needs doses of hurricanes and tornadoes a year. But, if I remember right, most satellites read only the mid-level of the atmosphere, but it has been a long time since I looked through stuff like that and I may be wrong. And secondly, temp maps are not designed to be really high res, and they likely would not show spikes around cities.
But, the Heat Island effect has been debated about raising the surface temp on the earth. Here is a real good article you might like.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)
Contains alot about global warming and the heat island effect. Don't be fooled by the name, they really seam to know their stuff.
-
even if they are extremely low resolution, I'd expect there to be some sort of blurb around Chicago, New York, LA, cities you can see from space with the naked eye. if there is no blurb, then I don't see how they would be able to skew the global temperature to any detectable degree, and it wouldn't change the fact that the temperature is hotter all over the place, not just in the general geographic reigon around urbanized nations. for instance, the amazon bason, Siberia, the antarctic peninsula, have all experienced a lot of warming.
-
even if they are extremely low resolution, I'd expect there to be some sort of blurb around Chicago, New York, LA, cities you can see from space with the naked eye. if there is no blurb, then I don't see how they would be able to skew the global temperature to any detectable degree, and it wouldn't change the fact that the temperature is hotter all over the place, not just in the general geographic reigon around urbanized nations. for instance, the amazon bason, Siberia, the antarctic peninsula, have all experienced a lot of warming.
That is certainly true, but another reason to why you do not see the heat island effects on maps is that most scientist try to average out the temps should the city not had been there. And that is really the basis of those who take the route as to saying whether or not the heat island effect is inflating GW numbers, is are the taking account how much to add or subtract.
Also I found this really cool animation while looking for that other site. Showing Pacific SST anomalies, watch how the El'Nino(warm waters of the coast of Mexico) quickly collapse as the La'Nina(Cool waters off the coast of Mexico) builds in. ;)
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst_olr/sst_anim.shtml (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst_olr/sst_anim.shtml)
-
ok, let's look at this in specific terms,
this is a map of temperature changes over the last few decades,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg)
this is a map of night lights on america
(http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/earth_2.jpg)
we can probably assume that the lights roughly correlate to levels of urbanization. so by the bottom map the eastern half of the country should have warm scew, sence the temperature variation is only about 1 degree, I would expect this to be rather pronounced. but in the first image you can see the mountains and far north of Canada have experienced the greatest change, exactly the opposite of what you would predict.
-
But you're not really here to ask real questions are you?
I'll admit, I was a little more abrasive than I should have been. Sorry about that. :)
I'll also admit that I didn't look as closely as I could have at the video you posted. I guess I kinda tuned out after they started painting Global Warming proponents as fear mongerers scaring small children with their tales in inevitable doom.
Moreover, several of the scientists that the reporter interviews as "opposing global warming" also believe firmly in the science behind Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer), or agree with human-induced global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) but disagree that the end result will be as catastrophic as some say.
Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?
Making another wild assertion was exactly my point...
In my defense, sarcasm and wry humour are difficult to get across in an entirely written medium. Again, my bad.
...that man-made global warming just might possibly be totally and completely FALSE? And that there is actually extremely strong evidence to suggest so.
You must be right, I must have missed a lot of good stuff. I'll admit, I don't think i've seen this strong evidence. In fact, i'm willing to bet that a large portion of the global scientific community haven't seen it either.
So, let me just understand this right: Are you saying that there is actually a massive debate in the scientific community that we don't know about, or that a large portion of the scientific community - most of it, in fact - is suppressing this evidence to push the... Global Warming lobby? Uh...
#2: On the contrary, those non-scientists are all I hear. They're being quoted everywhere and get their own television programs ALL THE TIME. But again, that's just here in the U.S.
-Please don't bring the creationist thing into this.... ugh. That was/is about religion vs science. This is science vs science. We can debate that another time.
Yeah, sorry about bringing up the Creationism issue, but you've got to admit the parallels are there.
Anyway, from the ads they showed in the report, i'm not surprised to hear how much "bad science" you see. Heck, you've got people comparing "Deniers" to Holocaust deniers, you've got children standing in front of trains as a metaphor for the "coming catastrophe". But then, these are likely the worst offenders in this area, so it's tough to judge from here. This is actually one of the major failings of the video you posted: It clearly only shows the utterly terrible ads - and they are freaking awful - to further support its mini-crusade against Global Warming.
#4: Again, by bad. I'll put it in next time when its just something I observe in the U.S. I am a stupid American afterall. I can't even point out my own country on a map. (sarcasm again, for the culturally inclined)
I was out of line with my remark, but you were the one to start throwing labels around. I don't know much about American politics, but how about we leave all the mud-throwing for another time, yeah? :)
#5: I put the "ABC fluff-piece" up there because at least here in the U.S. a news story like that is so incredibly rare I was completely blown away that it was even put on television. Parts of it may have been junk science, but its stuff you just don't see or hear very often. I'm willing to bet its stuff that you've never heard before, Mefustae.
That report looks like something you'd find on a Current Affairs-type program: Simplistic, one-sided, doesn't make you think all that much, and is likely inaccurate in any number of ways. You'll notice that it didn't really portray any viewpoint whatsoever, it just repeatedly took potshots at easy targets in Al Gore's movie and that disturbing ad campaign you guys seem to have. The reporter resorted to the aforementioned "scared little children" to vie for your sympathy. It praised the scientists that appeared on the report while demonising Al Gore, the IPCC, and any other Global Warming proponent. Quite frankly, this Stossel bloke is a hack and his report is even worse.
Down here, we've had quite a few programs about Global Warming, summoning up what little debate there is on the issue. Just recently, we had a couple of dedicated presentations - including that British anti-Global Warming doco that was heavily lambasted both here and in Britain for being blatantly propagandist - followed for several days by debates on the issue between experts to provide a 'fair playing field' for the issue. We've openly discussed it here and just about the only people still debating the issue are those close-minded die-hards on both sides, people sitting on the fence, and politicians.
The science is relatively conclusive, but you just have to look past all the tripe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o) to get an unbiased look at things.
-
Well, if you'd have seen the video in the context of what is all over the tv these days in the U.S..... its all incredibly ridiculous stuff about global warming. This single video was so incredibly uncommon... you wouldn't believe it.
On another note... I have heard almost everything you could possibly imagine in the case -for- manmade global warming. And yet I still have extremely large doubts about its reality. Its really freaking late where I live... within a week here, I'll put together a comprehensive list about things that really throw many aspects of the whole man-made global warming thing up in the air.
(keep in mind I'm not saying climate change doesn't happen... because it DOES and has been happening since the earth was formed. I'm arguing that the man-made global warming doomsday is almost completely a hoax.)
-
What you're not being told... and really WHY you believe that "scientists have largely been in agreement for ... 20 years" is because you're never been told that there are actually TONS of scientists that do NOT agree with it... and a lot of these so called global warming scientists aren't really scientists at all.
Before being a techie, I was a geologist for about 10 years. Actively involved in the debate. Reviewed the measured carbon levels in glacial ice, saw the spike that corresponded to the industrial revolution. From 1984 till about 1994(ish). I was not an principal researcher, but I knew enough about the various fields related to it to evaluate the data.
That was ~10 years ago, the "debate" wasn't much of one then. The data were pretty convincing. You're right, I have been out of the game for a while. However, I still know people in the game. I understand the "debate" is pretty dead unless you are into politics.
So I actually "believe" because I was an active participant with expert knowledge.
As I may have mentioned, I usually regret even posting in these, so I'll beg off now. And no, I did not watch the video, nor did I see Gore's movie, I was responding, specifically, to the assertion that the "science" behind these conclusions wasn't good, and the misinformed opinion that "Global Warming" is entirely about hot temperatures all the time. Its a straw man argument: "but its really cold now, so much for global warming."
The planet doesn't work that way, or operate on that day to day scale.
-edit-
Wow, ok, that video was just... How in the hell is THAT contributing to intelligent debate? How the HELL is that nothing but political debate?
-
It is pure political debate in my opinion. I find myself on another perspective of the argument.
What about adapting toward the climate if it does so change? That's what we've been doing. Just because we could attempt to change the climate, if we actually could agree, does not mean it is the only option available to us.
-
I suspect I would be annoyed by the Gore movie as well, using the carbon graph without the context of the measurements doesn't help the argument.
That graph IS an indicator of temperature rise, but its also an indicator of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Its usually taken from glacial ice, and there is a lag between the cause and the measured effect. That particular counter "argument" has been debunked repeatedly in the last 20 years. Its showing it in context that makes it meaningful. And that clip of Gore possibly showing it out of context was as bad as showing that clip of Gore's movie.
The CO2 system is pretty well understood, has been for a long time. Its a pretty clear indicator, when shown in context. But that requires some analytical understanding, how measurements are taken and evaluated, what the number actually means. CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans and the ice, and its relation to temperature is as close to "truth" as you can get in science. It is also a big, multi-variable "truth" not particularly suited to soundbite without exagerration.
That kind of critical thinking never gets applied on either side of the political debate.
-edit-
From the link WeatherOp posted, I'll buy this argument:
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
-
That kind of critical thinking never gets applied on either side of the political debate.
That pretty much renders the topic moot.
-
Indeed ;)
-
It is pure political debate in my opinion. I find myself on another perspective of the argument.
What about adapting toward the climate if it does so change? That's what we've been doing. Just because we could attempt to change the climate, if we actually could agree, does not mean it is the only option available to us.
We haven't been doing very much about preparing for a shift in the climate. It hasn't really affected major populated areas yet but its having an impact in the more extreme regions like in northern Canada where they really don't care too much about who is debating over what...just that the climate is changing all around them...ice is melting...stuff is thawing that hasn't thawed for thousands of years. Again they really don't care too much about the debate but the people living up there are probably going to have to cope with some of those changes as they progress. They are probably better off.
Heres my thing....focus on transportation seeing as thats a major component to all of this. We have twin problems with transportation. The first problem is that oil is starting to run out and the business reports are saying that crude production is falling because they aren't pumping as much oil as they used to. They think we may have peaked in 2006. So lets continue on with the solutions towards making cars, trucks, trains, busses, and other forms of land transportation more sustainable using hydrogen or something just as good and get it to the point where its sustainable. There's plenty of different ways to get hydrogen from just about anything and I think its possible given the technology and the will power to make it happen so that hydrogen is actually a renewable and clean energy source. If not hydrogen than something else that is clean as well.
With the right sort of investments in this you serve all sorts of purposes:
1) Creates jobs (a key thing for me really) in manufacturing, technology fields, and R&D
2) Reduces dependence on oil with the political issues that has as well as the environmental issues
3) Theoretically creates a clean energy source that has no or significantly less impact (nothing we do will have no impact)
There's probably more but all I see are benefits. It needs to work first and it needs the money and people are starting to get it...if not hydrogen than name your alternative but there are all sorts of alternatives out there now that we didn't even have 5 years ago. It will take some time but we're going to have to solve this soon for economic reasons if not for environmental ones. Might as well kill two birds with one stone.
-
Fine then, make it happen.
I remember thinking this some time ago. If those in power did bother to do something (Oho, they might say so but it's always misplanned and misdirected), then I'll be glad.
I take life with a pinch of salt and tend to be pragmatic.
-
Alright... here's a few interesting reads concerning global warming / climate change:
Volcanoes, El Niño, and cattle: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/07/global_warming_1.html
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
Mars is warming: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?ArtId=17977
Antarctic ice ISNT decreasing / climate's checks & balances: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/
see also: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/22/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-yet-another-predictable-distortion/
Arctic warming info: http://www.techcentralstation.com/112204A.html (add: the northwest passage isn't really open, and is still much less traversable than it was 70 years ago and beyond)
More to follow..... I seem to have run out of time.
P.S. Another site with general information: http://www.co2science.org/
-
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"
"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.
Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.
-
"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"
"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.
Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.
Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet. Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?
Then by all means lets prepare for worldwide nuclear destruction, comets destroying our planet, a planet-killing solar flare, a worldwide earth-shifting quake, tsunami, imminent alien invasion, spontaneous mass combustion, biological super-outbreak, zombies, godzilla... etc.
Tell me, Inquisitor, even though all those things are certainly a possibility, why wouldn't we do anything about them, right? I mean, I REALLY don't want my kids to be eaten by me when I turn out to be a zombie. http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm
-
Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?
QFT!
-
Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?
#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists
#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.
-
Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet. Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?
Wow, you are dense. And obviously unable to read. Touche'
Since you have decided insults are the order of the day, checking out now. Cheers, good luck with your "debate."
-
Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet. Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?
Wow, you are dense. And obviously unable to read. Touche'
Since you have decided insults are the order of the day, checking out now. Cheers, good luck with your "debate."
When you troll, prepare to be trolled in return. And note that I made no directed insult, as you yourself have just done. I was just jesting - no reason to get offended dude.
The point is, people are getting as worked up about the whole thing as those kids in the video. "We're all going to die because nobody is willing to make a decision."
A personal example. My grandmother got pretty sick some years back. The doc checked her out, diagnosed the problem, and gave her some drugs to treat it. A few years later she wasn't getting any better, and the drugs she was using had some pretty bad side-effects. Turns out it had been a WRONG DIAGNOSIS. And she went through those years of torture for nothing. If the doc had asked just a few more questions and gotten some other opinions, he probably could have given her the right stuff.
Even some of the most extreme global warming alarmists conclude that the threat isn't that great. If they're right, the temperature will raise a few degrees - something well within the range of what the earth has been doing for millions of years. Why start panicking SO MUCH about something that we are FORCED to make hasty decisions based upon a few inconclusive theories and when there is a substantial amount of disagreement? That being said - I refer you to the above linked articles (on page 2)
P.S. People think this whole thing is made up because evil corporations want to make evil proft from it. It doesn't matter who wins out the argument, profit will be made from it. Whether you be oil company, petrolium shareholder, environmental activist, journalist, scientist, or government... there will be profit... so don't make this an argument about who gets what profit.
-
"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"
"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.
Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.
Yes... because global warming is going to kill our planet. Did you go to the same school as those kids in the video?
Then by all means lets prepare for worldwide nuclear destruction, comets destroying our planet, a planet-killing solar flare, a worldwide earth-shifting quake, tsunami, imminent alien invasion, spontaneous mass combustion, biological super-outbreak, zombies, godzilla... etc.
Tell me, Inquisitor, even though all those things are certainly a possibility, why wouldn't we do anything about them, right? I mean, I REALLY don't want my kids to be eaten by me when I turn out to be a zombie. http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm
Oh I think the planet will out last us...thats the concern :)
-
Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?
#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists
#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.
#1: Got any proof of that?
#2: Yes, many unheard scientists such as Philip A. Cooney, the lawyer from the oil and gas industry who was caught editing EPA global warming reports to downplay it's significance, or worse, cover it up. :rolleyes:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html
-
#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists
Kosh brings up a rather good point about this. That's sort of an unsubstantiated statement.
#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.
Unless it's 3496 others, you haven't really got a leg to stand on!
Anyway, if there's profit to be had either way as you say, then why are you so dead-set against any movement towards decreasing our greenhouse gas output? Like you said, there's profit either way, so economic reasons are out. If you believe we can't warm the planet, you obviously can't believe that curbing our emissions could cool the planet and cause an ice-age. Hmmm, quite a conundrum.
It's all well and good to say you don't agree with the science, but how can you vehemently disagree with making our technology a damn sight greener, something that will undeniably help us a great deal in the future?
-
Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?
#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists
#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.
#1: Got any proof of that?
I may be missing something, but he might be right.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf)
The IPCC Bureau
Members of the IPCC Bureau are normally
elected for the duration of the preparation of an
IPCC Assessment Report (5-6 years). They
should be experts in the field of climate change
and all regions should be represented in the
IPCC Bureau. The Bureau is chaired by the Chair
of the IPCC and is composed of the Co-Chairs of
the three IPCC Working Groups and the Task
Force Bureau on National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, IPCC Vice-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of
the Working Groups. Presently the IPCC Bureau
has 30 members.
I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell, only 30 work with the IPCC itself, then they basicly choose what other scientists they want to use.
Hundreds of experts from all over the world are
contributing to the preparation of IPCC reports
as authors, contributors and reviewers. They
are selected by the Working Group Bureaux
from nominations received from governments
and participating organisations or identified
directly because of their special expertise
reflected in their publications and works. The
composition of lead author teams for chapters
of IPCC reports shall reflect a range of views,
expertise and geographical representation.
-
I would like to once again point out a flaw in a form of argument that has been used a fair few times. I would like you to pretend that it is 2003 and the US is about to invade Iraq because we knew they had been working on nukes years ago and couldn't prove they weren't doing so now. at the time an argument was used to much effect.
"there are two possibilities, Saddam Husein is makeing nukes or he is not, and there are two posable courses of action, we can take him out of power and rebuild his state into a democracy or we can leave him in power and let him do whatever he wants.
if we are wrong and he is not makeing nukes then the two possibilities are that we don't invade and he keeps his hold on the country indefinitely, or we do invade and liberate his country and give the 25 million inhabitants freedom i the first time in a generation.
but if we are right, there is no option but to invade because if we don't the repercussions are devastating beyond imagine, not cost would be to great to prevent that from happening!"
now look ware we are it turned out the evidence we thought we had for nukes was all either BS or totally inouculs, and the cost is going out of control and might prove more damaging than a full nuclear war.
but the more important point is that the point of this line of argument wasn't to try to convince you based on some cost benefit logic, the point of the argument was to distract you with visions of an apocalyptic disaster so you'd forget about the actual important question. does Saddam have nukes?
I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.
-
#1: because of those 3500, very few are actual scientists
Kosh brings up a rather good point about this. That's sort of an unsubstantiated statement.
#2: because like the 4, there are many others like them who are not being heard.
Unless it's 3496 others, you haven't really got a leg to stand on!
Anyway, if there's profit to be had either way as you say, then why are you so dead-set against any movement towards decreasing our greenhouse gas output? Like you said, there's profit either way, so economic reasons are out. If you believe we can't warm the planet, you obviously can't believe that curbing our emissions could cool the planet and cause an ice-age. Hmmm, quite a conundrum.
It's all well and good to say you don't agree with the science, but how can you vehemently disagree with making our technology a damn sight greener, something that will undeniably help us a great deal in the future?
Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions. When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener? In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.
Secondly, if you would have read those other articles I'd linked, and that others have linked, you would already have your answers.
P.S. Nice find, by the way WeatherOp. Here's another one: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966
-
Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions. When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener? In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.
Okay, my bad. But you still haven't answered why we should take the word of 4 dissenting scientists over many, many more in the IPCC. Nor have you explained who all these masses of people are that are being silenced by the sinister Global Warming lobby.
*Snip*
I'd say that's a pretty bad analogy. Not only is it a loaded question, but the situation is completely different. Let me set it out to mirror the argument for action on Global Warming:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam Hussein has got WMDs:
Invade - Hussein's WMDs are shut down, but the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists. This was all predicted by Dick Cheney back in the early 90's, mind you.
Don't invade - Nation and entire region remains relatively stable, but in a future conflict Hussein uses his WMDs to kill massive amounts of people.
Saddam Hussein has not got WMDs:
Invade - No WMDs are found an the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists.
Don't invade - Nation and region remains relatively stable. Things keep on going as they have, nation could potentially collapse in the future due to sanctions, but nothing concrete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, when you look at that, it would seem as though the best option to take would be to invade, saving a large amount of people in some future conflict. However, invasion will inevitably lead to a quagmire if you're right or you're wrong, so doing so would be going in with the knowledge that the nation and region would destabilize, the military would be stuck in there, and the place would become a breeding ground for terrorists. Ultimately, there is a 100% chance of a negative end result for invasion, but only a 50% chance for a negative result for not invading.
Add to that the fact that I find it incredulous that you would see the argument for Global Warming in any way similar to the "argument" for Saddam's WMDs. On one hand, we're talking a massive number of nations and governmental bodies - not to mention a majority of the scientific community - agreeing with the conclusion that there is man-made Global Warming. On the other, you've got barely two governments working with information that most know to be false, doing everything they can to derail attempts to find the truth.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that the apocalyptic view is only the very worst-case scenario, and that there are a multitude of far lesser end-games we could see occur. However, the fact remains that the threat of an apocalypse, however fanciful, is far worse than the alternative of the worst-case scenario for making our technology greener and Global Warming not happening.
I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.
Yes, because worrying about future generations is shortsighted and stupid.
-
Wow, you all really need to read what I said first and not jump to your own conclusions. When did I ever say I vehemently disagreed with making our technology a damn sight greener? In fact, I said I supported it if you'd go back and read my first few posts.
Okay, my bad. But you still haven't answered why we should take the word of 4 dissenting scientists over many, many more in the IPCC. Nor have you explained who all these masses of people are that are being silenced by the sinister Global Warming lobby.
*Snip*
I'd say that's a pretty bad analogy. Not only is it a loaded question, but the situation is completely different. Let me set it out to mirror the argument for action on Global Warming:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam Hussein has got WMDs:
Invade - Hussein's WMDs are shut down, but the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists. This was all predicted by Dick Cheney back in the early 90's, mind you.
Don't invade - Nation and entire region remains relatively stable, but in a future conflict Hussein uses his WMDs to kill massive amounts of people.
Saddam Hussein has not got WMDs:
Invade - No WMDs are found an the nation destabilizes. Military become stuck in a quagmire and ultimate future of nation in serious question. Chaotic situation becomes breeding-ground for terrorists.
Don't invade - Nation and region remains relatively stable. Things keep on going as they have, nation could potentially collapse in the future due to sanctions, but nothing concrete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, when you look at that, it would seem as though the best option to take would be to invade, saving a large amount of people in some future conflict. However, invasion will inevitably lead to a quagmire if you're right or you're wrong, so doing so would be going in with the knowledge that the nation and region would destabilize, the military would be stuck in there, and the place would become a breeding ground for terrorists. Ultimately, there is a 100% chance of a negative end result for invasion, but only a 50% chance for a negative result for not invading.
Add to that the fact that I find it incredulous that you would see the argument for Global Warming in any way similar to the "argument" for Saddam's WMDs. On one hand, we're talking a massive number of nations and governmental bodies - not to mention a majority of the scientific community - agreeing with the conclusion that there is man-made Global Warming. On the other, you've got barely two governments working with information that most know to be false, doing everything they can to derail attempts to find the truth.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that the apocalyptic view is only the very worst-case scenario, and that there are a multitude of far lesser end-games we could see occur. However, the fact remains that the threat of an apocalypse, however fanciful, is far worse than the alternative of making our technology greener and Global Warming not happening.
I just thought I'd bring that up before someone started talking about 'the children' again.
Yes, because worrying about future generations is shortsighted and stupid.
The problem with analogies is that they only go so far. They're not the exact situation, so they really can only be used as a point if all people present agree on the base of the example. While I can see where Bobbau and Mefustae are coming from, the Iraq situation would be a bad correlation. I vote to drop it before it becomes a red herring with a will of its own.
Again Mefustae, you have once more missed every single link that I and others have posted. Really - if you want an answer go click on the link. Clicky click click click. Seriously. Don't argue here unless you're willing to read the evidence that is posted here that you ask for. Look, I'll even post some of the more pertinent ones -again-
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
-
Mefustae, I think you missed my point.
I was attacking a common argumentation style used by many people rather than discussing the situation directly.
-
Hazaanko, since we are on the same "side" for the moment this feels a bit award but, at least those last two links are BS and if you are going to seriously try to argue this stuff you should recognize this. the first one doesn't work and the second one being a direct source from the IPCC could be used for a valid attack on them if they admit to something in it. but I could find 5000 people who could be accurately described as "qualified researchers" who would agree with just about anything I wanted, 500 is nothing and even if it's five billion people it could still be wrong.
the fourth one is just a mess. I really doubt 528 is a decent sample size for climate related papers, 'medical researcher' is hardly the sort of person who should be compiling these sorts of statistics professionally, neutral doesn't mean oppose, it means they were either on some topic completely unrelated or was worded as to not take sides, which scientific papers generally strive for. and once again it seems you are trying to make some sort of broken "everyone else is doing it" argument. if there is wide spread consensus on a subject is irrelevant to whether it's correct or not.
it's no wonder no one wants to read your links if this is there content.
but more importantly, you should make your arguments yourself, not offload them onto "experts" who present you with a fancy sounding statistic. you should look at the data behind what is being discussed and try to make your own conclusions from it, based on what's known and what can be accurately mathematically extrapolated.
-
I may be missing something, but he might be right.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who isn't permenantly on the IPCC is not a scientist? Again, it proves nothing unless you know the backgrounds of all the people.
And considering how he has so quickly dismissed Inquisitor, someone who actually does have real experience doing real research into this, I wouldn't buy his "well they aren't real experts because I said so" arguement.
Infowars is just a conspiracy theory website owned and operated by the same guy who runs prison planet. There was a video on youtube somewhere of him giving a big speech about how everything is a conspiracy by a cabal of one worlders.
-
Mefustae, I think you missed my point.
I was attacking a common argumentation style used by many people rather than discussing the situation directly.
Urgh, didn't read the first sentence of your post! :p
Ain't my face red, you actually make a good point. Falling back on a purely logical choice, you do sort of miss out on potential variables. However, the argument - as outlined by IceFire - should not be discounted entirely.
1) Global warming is caused by us and we do something
2) Global warming is caused by us and we do nothing
3) Global warming is not caused by us and we do something
4) Global warming is not caused by us and we do nothing
It gives a clear, uncompromising view of the worst case scenarios for every choice, and - using logic - demonstrates the only reasonable avenue of advance. Ultimately, the worst that can happen if we act and nothing happens is far, far less severe than the worst that can happen if we don't act and something does happen. Nobody is saying that Global Warming will definitely, unequivocally result in armageddon, merely that a statistically significant possibility exists that should not go unchecked.
It's all about simple risk management: Do we really want to take the risk just because not everybody agrees? Do we really want to take the risk because we can't be stuffed doing what will eventually be done at some point in the future anyway? Do we really want to take the risk because there's a chance nothing will happen?
-
I may be missing something, but he might be right.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who isn't permenantly on the IPCC is not a scientist? Again, it proves nothing unless you know the backgrounds of all the people.
Ehh? Where did I say that? He posted that most IPCC are not scientists and from the looks of it that is correct as only 30 experts work on the main issues for the IPCC directly. Perhaps you should read the second half of my post.
-
Again, you just now said that if they don't work for the IPCC directly they must not be scientists (or at least that is what you implied)
Hundreds of experts from all over the world are
contributing to the preparation of IPCC reports
as authors, contributors and reviewers. They
are selected by the Working Group Bureaux
from nominations received from governments
and participating organisations or identified
directly because of their special expertise
reflected in their publications and works.
And yes, I did read the second part of your post.
-
1) Global warming is caused by us and we do something
2) Global warming is caused by us and we do nothing
3) Global warming is not caused by us and we do something
4) Global warming is not caused by us and we do nothing
It gives a clear, uncompromising view of the worst case scenarios for every choice, and - using logic - demonstrates the only reasonable avenue of advance. Ultimately, the worst that can happen if we act and nothing happens is far, far less severe than the worst that can happen if we don't act and something does happen. Nobody is saying that Global Warming will definitely, unequivocally result in armageddon, merely that a statistically significant possibility exists that should not go unchecked.
It's all about simple risk management: Do we really want to take the risk just because not everybody agrees? Do we really want to take the risk because we can't be stuffed doing what will eventually be done at some point in the future anyway? Do we really want to take the risk because there's a chance nothing will happen?
well first of all I take issue with the word 'caused', worsened I could accept for argument, but it is quite clearly established that the earth has been warming quite rapidly for the last ~15 thousand years. there was a bit of a lul that bottomed out in the middle ages, but aside from that it's been getting nothing but hotter in recent history, and not understanding this I believe is a major flaw in most people's understanding of the complexities of this issue.
but no matter how tamely it's phrased the point still is, you are focusing on the consequences of an even when the subject of the discussion is if the event is even happening at all.
now given the youthfulness of climatology (about 30 years old), it's erroneous history (climatologists DID say we were headed for another ice age not TOO long ago), the culture surrounding it (which I think to a much diluted degree can be represented in this very discussion, note how receptive some people are to the possibility global warming as it is presently presented might be wrong ("I won't let you kill my children for your profit"), imagine what it might be like to work in an organisation which was founded to explain, quantify, and provide suggestions about man's effect on global warming. not saying the IPCC are a cabal trying to brainwash everyone, but there is bound to be some pressure, as there is in all cultures, not to rock the boat. [wow I put a lot of text in these parentheses]), the small sample set of years that it is operating on (200 out of four billion), the fact that virtually all the data used to present humanity as the 'cause' of global warming is correlative and not causal, and the unusual extremes that the present time represents (the CO2 levels of earth are currently at a nearly all time low, the temperatures of earth are unusually cold historically), I really don't think that humanity's status as primary factor should be said with such certainty. it's up for debate if we are even a tipping point factor (especially if you factor in that CO2 is actually both a much less effective greenhouse gas than, for example water vapor, as well as less abundant) as far as I'm concerned. even if you accept a major role for human produced GHGs in the current warming trend we might possibly be able to slow it down by a few hundred years, but if you look at the history the earth is definitely going to get a lot hotter sooner or later (probably sooner), our resources would be better spent trying to figure a way to live with higher global temperatures than to try to fight what seems to me an unwinnable battle against nature. focusing solely on the preventative side is definitely a fatal mistake.
-
Hazaanko, since we are on the same "side" for the moment this feels a bit award but, at least those last two links are BS and if you are going to seriously try to argue this stuff you should recognize this. the first one doesn't work and the second one being a direct source from the IPCC could be used for a valid attack on them if they admit to something in it. but I could find 5000 people who could be accurately described as "qualified researchers" who would agree with just about anything I wanted, 500 is nothing and even if it's five billion people it could still be wrong.
the fourth one is just a mess. I really doubt 528 is a decent sample size for climate related papers, 'medical researcher' is hardly the sort of person who should be compiling these sorts of statistics professionally, neutral doesn't mean oppose, it means they were either on some topic completely unrelated or was worded as to not take sides, which scientific papers generally strive for. and once again it seems you are trying to make some sort of broken "everyone else is doing it" argument. if there is wide spread consensus on a subject is irrelevant to whether it's correct or not.
it's no wonder no one wants to read your links if this is there content.
but more importantly, you should make your arguments yourself, not offload them onto "experts" who present you with a fancy sounding statistic. you should look at the data behind what is being discussed and try to make your own conclusions from it, based on what's known and what can be accurately mathematically extrapolated.
Um, I already had made the arguments myself. that was why people were asking me for sources. They were ASKING to be offloaded onto experts, since they obviously don't consider me one. I already have looked at the data, and made my conclusion..... long before I ever started this thread. Those links were just what I could find in the five minutes I had. The point was (whether the last two links were 'good sources' or not... to prove whether there were more than just 4 scientists that did not believe in global warming. And I did. In less than 5 minutes. I wonder what looking around for a while longer would result?
***taps foot waiting for Kosh to chime in telling me I didn't prove anything...
-
Who were these 4 scientists again? :P
-
:mad:
-
Who were these 4 scientists again? :P
Only two scientists, really. One of the "dissenting experts" in that video is a staunch supporter of Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer), and the other does believe in man-made Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy). If Hazaanko was wrong about those two scientists, one must wonder what else you could be incorrect about.
-
What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!? I never said anything in defense of them in the first place. :shaking: :confused: I never even brought them up. Now you're just making stuff up. If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?
-
What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!? I never said anything in defense of them in the first place. I never even brought them up. Now you're just making stuff up. If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?
Yeah, sorry about that. Dick move on my part, must have been feeling a little abrasive when I wrote that.
But anyway, you've referenced the 4 scientists - which i'm assuming you took from that ABC report - a few times as "part of a far larger crowd" of scientists against Global Warming. I was just pointing out that they were not all what they were made out to be, further emphasizing the worthlessness of that fluff-piece you posted. Again, sorry to sound so dickish before. :)
-
What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!? I never said anything in defense of them in the first place. I never even brought them up. Now you're just making stuff up. If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?
Yeah, sorry about that. Dick move on my part, must have been feeling a little abrasive when I wrote that.
But anyway, you've referenced the 4 scientists - which i'm assuming you took from that ABC report - a few times as "part of a far larger crowd" of scientists against Global Warming. I was just pointing out that they were not all what they were made out to be, further emphasizing the worthlessness of that fluff-piece you posted. Again, sorry to sound so dickish before. :)
Fluff-piece or not, you seem to have gotten one of the points I was originally trying to make. Not all scientists are what they seem or are made out to be.
-
It doesn't help your arguement though when the scientists that aren't all they turn out to be happen to be the ones you cited :D
EDIT: Now it's my turn to offload on experts
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071027-new-un-environmental-report-paints-a-very-bleak-future-for-humanity.html
-
It doesn't help your arguement though when the scientists that aren't all they turn out to be happen to be the ones you cited :D
EDIT: Now it's my turn to offload on experts
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071027-new-un-environmental-report-paints-a-very-bleak-future-for-humanity.html
It doesn't, however, make certain parts of their argument any less valid, as I've already shown.
-
Not completely. Panel's like the IPCC do background checks to make sure that whomever they get doesn't end up being a total whacko. Their work is also fact checked and peer reviewed. Inquisitor does have first hand experience with how they system works, and a far better understanding of what the community really thinks than you or I. I would accept what he says anyday because a lot of people do trust him, including me. To say that most of those people "are not real scientists" without actually providing a list of those people with backgrounds (including possible "influences") is distorting and misleading.
-
Not completely. Panel's like the IPCC do background checks to make sure that whomever they get doesn't end up being a total whacko. Their work is also fact checked and peer reviewed. Inquisitor does have first hand experience with how they system works, and a far better understanding of what the community really thinks than you or I. I would accept what he says anyday because a lot of people do trust him, including me. To say that most of those people "are not real scientists" without actually providing a list of those people with backgrounds (including possible "influences") is distorting and misleading.
How did pirates Greenpeace get in there with them then? A total whacko = somebody who doesn't agree with them maybe? All that fact-checking and peer reviewing means nothing if the science isn't correct or lacks critical context.
The video I posted did make a few good points - one of them being the makeup of the IPCC.
I'm totally hopped up on painkillers and can't really move my arms and I can't read so I hope any of that was understandable. I should have time in the next few days to find some good supporting articles. :ick:
-
I wasn't able to watch the video since youtube recently got blocked in China, and the transfer rates really suck using proxies, so I'll have to pass the torch on that one.