I saw this on James P. Hogan's website this morning, and I felt I had to share:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1895-1932
The Times, February 24, 1895 "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again" Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.
New York Times, October 7, 1912 "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923 "The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923 "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
Time Magazine, September 10, 1923 "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."
New York Times, September 18, 1924 "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1929-1969
New York Times, March 27, 1933 "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939 "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Time Magazine, 1951 Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.
New York Times, 1952 Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.
U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954 "[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."
GLOBAL COOLING: 1954-1976
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations the are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Science News, March 1, 1975 "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."
International Wildlife, July-August, 1975 "But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."
New York Times, May 21, 1975 "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?
Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992 "About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of systenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."
Time Magazine, April 19, 2001 "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
New York Times, December 27, 2005 "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"
The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2002 "Billions will dies, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So what is your point lisa?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<shrug> I don't know. That it's time for some global cooling hysteria?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Usually, Rabbit, this would be the point where folks come in and offer proof that the global warming we're observing now is not part of a warming and cooling cycle.
Just nudging you in the right direction.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's not new information that the world's climate moves in cycles of cooler periods and warmer periods - as much as many would like to deny it.
The question is whether the actions of humans can significantly affect that cycle - and if we even have the perspective to tell whether or not the increases are natural or caused by humans.
Are we in a warming period? Seems like. Did we cause it? That's the question of the decade. Will it cool off again? All historical evidence says it will. Will it cool off as much as it naturally would, or have humans impacted climate permanently? That's another big question, and the answer remains to be seen.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The biggest question--whether natural, man made, or the product of Marvin the Martians U38 Space Modulator--will the effects of this change be so detrimental as to effect mankinds existance, and can we do anything about it? Will the economic cost, and all associated costs, to change it be less than the economic cost, and all associated costs, of not changing it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Oh, but that's just silly. That's a game so that any change at all, warming or cooling, can be used as evidence of global warming.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling" and therefore we should be skeptical of global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below)
The current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming does not bear easy juxtaposition to any of the other timeframe 'scares' presented, due in part to
1. actual scientific consensus, and 2. expanded climatological models we were not previously capable of.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Usually, Rabbit, this would be the point where folks come in and offer proof that the global warming we're observing now is not part of a warming and cooling cycle.
I'm not sure why that would be necessary or called for here.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Unfortunately for Hogan, handfuls of articles selectively taken from periods spanning decades are a poor way of attempting to show a trend. Such tactics are often very appealing to people who already agree with the argument being presented, though.
See also: Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Samp, #2 is a legit reason to pursue global warming. #1 is far less so. A vast majority of physicists are also pursuing string theory, but that hasn't yielded any reason to think the theory actually describes reality. It is still just one of many possible scenarios. As global warming projections still represent just one of many possible futures.
The more evidence is collected, and the more recordable trends match up to projections, the more reliable a theory like this becomes. But it is never absolute, and it drives me crazy when people treat consensus as though it were proof, and a prediction as though it could be considered a "fact".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I accept the general principle of global warming. Even if I didn't, cutting back on greenhouse gasses seems like a good idea, and I'd support it.
Samprimary's response answers Lisa's question very well: this time it's different because more educated/concerned parties agree that it's really happening than ever before; and we've got better technology to interpret data than ever before. These two items explain why we don't see global cooling hysteria.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:this time it's different because more educated/concerned parties agree that it's really happening than ever before; and we've got better technology to interpret data than ever before.
Not to disagree with your general argument, but I just want to point out that this was probably what was stated each time before, and this is probably what will be said next time too.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Oh, but that's just silly. That's a game so that any change at all, warming or cooling, can be used as evidence of global warming.
First of all, there's usual caveat of citing news articles about science, namely that journalists are, by and large, pretty bad at reporting scientific findings. Note the recent furor over the neurobiologist studying the phenomena of gay sheep, which news outlets erroneously described as including research into "de-gaying" the animals, setting off a huge, and completely pointless, firestorm of controversy.
There's a reason why most scientists these days use the term "climate change," rather than "global warming," and this is precisely it. While the effects of climate change will be, in the long run, an increase in average temperatures worldwide, it brings with it a whole ton of local disruptions that aren't necessarily expressed as super-hot summers or sunny winters. Knocking the Earth's normal climate patterns out of balance can quite easily lead to local cooling as weather patterns change. The shutdown of thermohaline circulation mentioned by Scott is one scenario through which this could occur.
Put simply: the weather is an enormously complex system. Screw with it, and you get all sorts of effects, some nastier than others, some localized to particular regions, and some moving in the opposite direction from others. Saying that's silly is roughly akin to saying that because not drinking enough water can kill you, then it's impossible to drink too much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, but this time we really mean it.
The Wikipedia article Samprimary linked to states that the globing cooling push in the 1970s did not have wide support. Of course, that "fact" also needs a citation... so take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But it is never absolute, and it drives me crazy when people treat consensus as though it were proof, and a prediction as though it could be considered a "fact".
I agree wholeheartedly, and it happens all the time. An additional layer of frustration comes when not treating it as though it were fact gets you lumped in with those who treat global warming as a fantasy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: A vast majority of physicists are also pursuing string theory
quote:String theory does rule the roost in some parts of theoretical high energy physics and in many major departments.
Note the qualifiers. It is certainly not "a vast majority." It might be the most common focus of research among certain types of theoretical physicists. But that simply means that it is viewed as interesting and possibly informative, not accepted as true. It also ignores the fact that many theoretical physicists (and pretty much all applied physicists) have nothing whatsoever to do with string theory.
Lee Smolin (whose book I must assume you are basing this claim on) is not the great physicist that Slate and others made it sound like. His book is intellectually dishonest, not groundbreaking.
[Edited for additional detail.]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yeah, but this time we really mean it.
The Wikipedia article Samprimary linked to states that the globing cooling push in the 1970s did not have wide support. Of course, that "fact" also needs a citation... so take it with a grain of salt.
It's not a fantasy, it's a scam. Like thigh cream, or enzyte or cortislim or herbal supplements or any other "scientifically proven" way into your bank account.
It's where the research money is and where the votes are.
Even big business loves it because it increases the initial cost of entry for any potential competition.
*sigh* and I swore to myself I'd stay out of this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's not a fantasy, it's a scam. Like thigh cream, or enzyte or cortislim or herbal supplements or any other "scientifically proven" way into your bank account.
The arguments I've seen in support of global warming speak more eloquently than its detractors. Now-- there is hyperbole: the last thing in Lisa's first post is some stark raving hyperbole (EDIT: and on re-read, a really terrible science fiction story premise).
I don't know much about how big business proponents of global warming are fleecing the issue-- can you offer some references or arguments that show how it's taking place?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Where do you get the idea that "A vast majority of physicists are also pursuing string theory"? From what I know of the field, including knowing a half dozen or so non-string field studying physicists, this isn't remotely true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pokes self*
Apparently, it's only on Hatrack that I'm invisible today. Huh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
rivka, I saw you after I posted. So, I'll add "Yeah, also what rivka said."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I could've sworn I heard a rivka in here... but nope!
Nobody here but us chickens.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. Fair enough. (It wasn't just this thread -- the same thing happened (with someone else) on another thread.)
Hey, you never responded to my response to your response to my question about my email.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
"They" have said otherwise before.
Not the same they. Just, y'know, climatologists as a whole.
Well, some of them.
<sigh>
Stoke, stoke, stoke that imaginary contraversy.
Ignore the people who devote their lives to studying this to maintain the status quo. Because, y'know, I'm sure the average pundit understands the issue far better.
"They" have contradicted themselves.
Whew. And here I thought ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica were collapsing.
And hurricanes that had previously been thought impossible were battering South America.
And permafrost that had supported buildings for decades was becoming unstable.
And polar bears were being considered for the endangered species list specifically because of global warming.
But "they" have contradicted themselves. So... I guess none of that is happening anymore.
Okey dokey. My world has purple clouds and edible pink ponies that taste like cotton candy. We seem to be going that route.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you responding to anyone's post in particular, Sterling, or was that a rant?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I never saw a response to your response to my response to your email. It may have gotten filtered over to my studies folder, which, since I'm not running anything now, generally only gets spam with things like experiement or studies in the title. I'll check when I get in tomorrow.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I could've sworn I heard a rivka in here... but nope!
OK, so we've got ourselves what is hopefully prime rivka habitat. Now, I know, rivkas have been very scarce lately-I haven't seen one in ages!-but if we're lucky, and we've bought the correct brand of rivka-callers, we might just make a sighting!
Binoculars out, everyone!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Looked like a response to the original post. A little snarkier than maybe I would have liked, but far closer to the response called for by it than what you suggested, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A little snarkier than maybe I would have liked, but far closer to the response called for by it than what you suggested, Scott.
:laughs:
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Just a quick correction: Bill O'Reilley is actually convinced that there IS global warming going on...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, I'm in the camp that doesn't really know what's going on and thinks it's probably somewhere in the middle of the group that says we are all imminently doomed and the camp that says it's all a scam.
But, much of what is suggested to deal with this - develop alternative fuels and energy sources, preserving rain forests, etc. are things that I think are good ideas for other reasons, besides just the global warming scare. So, I don't have a problem supporting them.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And to go along with what Belle said, I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: But, much of what is suggested to deal with this - develop alternative fuels and energy sources, preserving rain forests, etc. are things that I think are good ideas for other reasons, besides just the global warming scare. So, I don't have a problem supporting them.
Agreed 100%! (Although the last time I pointed this out, someone tried to convince me that airborne pollutants are a good thing.)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
rivka — I was typing fast because I was late for work. Yes, I read Smolin's book, but I was aware that "theoretical physics" is a small subset of physics as a whole, so I was speaking far too generally. And upon reflection, "vast" was too strong a word. But the point of my analogy still stands. The number of scientists who believe something or pursue something is irrelevant to that thing's accuracy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pursue, absolutely. By definition almost. Believed? Well, it's hardly irrelevant. If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
But I would agree that it is not proof, and certainly not absolute proof. It is one piece of evidence among many.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Pursue, absolutely. By definition almost. Believed? Well, it's hardly irrelevant. If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
I'd add in an adjustment that this is a situation where a "vast majority" of scienctists who study this have said not jsut that they believe in it but that they believe that there is significant evidence strongly in favor of this.
Geoff, Removing "vast" from your statement is an improvement, but I don't think you've reached it being true until you take out "majority" as well. I've got no problem with you saying some physicists are pursuing string theory.
Also, this:
quote:The number of scientists who believe something or pursue something is irrelevant to that thing's accuracy.
is true when taken in a simplistic, superficial manner, but is generally false in a more accurate and complex correlative way.
[ January 26, 2007, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Although the last time I pointed this out, someone tried to convince me that airborne pollutants are a good thing
They make the sunrises and sunsets more colorful; true story.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
Of course ... but in cases like this, I'd love it if people would stop crowing about the consensus, and start elaborating on the evidence — which is the actual reason to believe the idea being proposed.
By the way, I'm obviously a total amateur in the realm of theoretical physics ... just read some Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and most recently, Smolin's book. I assumed that, while Smolin definitely had a point of view others would disagree with, at least the statistical claims he made about the popularity of string theory, etc, would be accurate, simply because they're the most checkable. Apparently, someone knows better Care to elaborate? On that, and on the claim of "intellectual dishonesty"? Having not yet seen a rebuttal, I'm interested in what the other side of that discussion sounds like.
quote:... is true when taken in a simplistic, superficial manner, but is generally false in a more accurate and complex correlative way.
Wow. That may be the emptiest sentence I've seen in a while. Says just enough to express contempt, yet has almost no content that would allow the reader to evaluate it
I meant the statement to be simple. If a majority of scientists believe something of which I have not yet been convinced, then telling me how many scientists believe it doesn't get me any closer to accepting it. If they have a good reason to believe it, then tell me their reason.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but what if they have several hundred reasons for believing it, each of which is in itself not that strong and also fairly complicated to understand? A lot of science is like that.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Your average scientific theory can be explained on a popularizable level, in such a way that interested amateurs can get the gist of how it works. If that isn't enough (eg, it is forced to skim past too many important details) to convince, then an interested reader can look at increasingly complex explanations until he either finds a level where it is convincing, or finds a level where his doubts are confirmed for a solid reason.
Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you. You must have some other agenda, or maybe you're just an idiot. Personally, I think that a person who can be categorized as a wholehearted "believer" or "denier" without something more than the testimony of others to go by is a much better target for the "idiot" appellation than someone who wants to understand the reasoning first.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, There are many, many readily available sources of information about why scientists believe that global warming is occurring, among them threads on this very site. There was a recent movie in wide release about this. There are position statements on this, freely accessible online, with links to the various studies that substantiate the included claims.
I'm not sure what else you want people to do to get this evidence across to you.
edit: The consensus argument, as far as I can tell, is generally used not to establish the primary tenability of this idea, but rather in response to many of the weak challenges (often taking the form of talking about the controversy about this where none exists, much like the ID crowd does) offered by opponents.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dog, People crow on the consensus because those who oppose taking action continual harp on the "controversy".
The evidence consists of literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications. If you would like to read a good summary of the science, I recommend the book " The Discovery of Global Warming"
My deep deep frustration on this is that I have 10 years of post secondary education in Science and Engineering plus 15 years of teaching Science and Engineering at a graduate level. I have been following global climate change scientific research for 20 years and have been doing atmospheric chemistry research for about the last 8 years. Despite that, I am not yet a leading expert in global climate change. I know who the leading experts are and I understand the results of their studies and the key criticims. I know where the key uncertainties lie in the field and understand why different models of the system disagree and can judge as to whether those disagreements do or do not invalidate an aspect of the theory. But it really did take years of scientific study to understand the field and I can't explain it to you or any one else in a few minutes on a internet forum.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but you sound like you want me or someone else to explain to you in a few paragraphs on an internet forum the research that others take years of intensive study to learn. Then you want me to trust you to make your own judgement on the validity of the research which supports global climate change.
At least 999 out of a thousand of the criticisms I hear of Global Climate Science have been thoroughly disproven in the scientific literature. Some of them, like the ones Lisa infers in this thread, are patently obsurd. They are the equivalent of the arguments put forth by the flat earth society. But frankly, it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you truly are interested in understanding the evidence for Global Climate Change, then do the research. I've given you a good starting point with the link I posted above.
This is at least the 10th time I've posted that link on hatrack and to the best of my knowledge, no one here has yet taken the time to investigate it. If you won't take the time to investigate what's already out their, why should I waste my time trying to explain the science to you?
I've developed a very strong impression that those who continue to criticize Global Climate science, understand somewhere in their subconscious that if this the science is valid, it creates an ethical mandate for us to make some big sacrifices. As a result, they are using every tool in their box to avoid believing the science so that they can continue under the dillusion that they are ethical people.
Well at some point, "I didn't know", fails to be an excuse. If you are honestly trying to understand, then go to the link I posted. Read the book. Read information the author has added since the book was printed. Then come back here with your questions and I will try to answer them.
Until then, I will simply say this. Thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue have concluded that human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels, is radically altering the atmosphere of the planet and that these changes are creating major ecological and economic impacts around the world. This will impact not only thousands of species but will adversely impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people unless we can bring it under control. That is the consensus of those who have studied this field in depth.
Unless you have taken the time to read the science yourself, what reasons do you have to doubt the scientific consensus?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
Perhaps valid in some contexts but no this one. We aren't talking about a lot of well informed people. We are talking about thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science over the period of many decades.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you.
I don't see this at all. Do you have examples of this from Hatrack or other non-extremist sources?
I'm somewhat bothered by how you seem to be making things all about the faults you perceive in people rather than about the evidence.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Wow, Rabbit. You really think that doubt is not allowable in this situation?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you.
We aren't talking about a "consensus opinion" here. We are talking about the best understanding available as the result of thousands of scientific study. While that doesn't consitute "proven fact" because their are still so many unknowns, it does constitute the best explanation available through the collaboration of all the human intellect on the planet. To equate that with "opinion" is an insult.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you feel this discussion is a waste of your valuable time, refrain from entering it, or commenting on it.
You'll be happier. So will the rest of the thread's participants.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Wow, Rabbit. You really think that doubt is not allowable in this situation?
I think that any rational open minded individual who has looked at the body of scientific evidence in the field will conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. That opinion is based on years of study in the area and a deep familiarity with the research. In my experience, I have never met an scientist or individual who took the time to sincerely investigate the scientific evidence who did not reach the same conclusion.
When you have made the first step to investigating the science behind this by reading the book I've linked you to, then I will you can question my stance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I fail to see how Rabbit's informed opinions coupled with her lack of desire to go into the extensive details of the support for them should be less welcome to this thread than other people's uniformed opinions coupled with their apparent lack of desire to educate themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:laughs:
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you feel this discussion is a waste of your valuable time, refrain from entering it, or commenting on it.
You'll be happier. So will the rest of the thread's participants.
Scott R, If what you want is a happy discussion. Keep sticking your head in the sand and limit your discussion of Global Warming to web forums where no one whos done a lick of scientific research in the area participates.
If what you want is to understand why thousands of scientist think that human activity is causing a Global Climate Crisis, then go to the link I posted and read a good lay summary of science.
But don't come here, as some have done, and complain about how people cite a scientific consensus rather than explaining the scientific facts. There are many sources where a person can learn the scientific facts. If you won't go to those, why should I believe you'd take the time to read them if I took the time to post them at hatrack.
If you question the position of the leading authorities in the area, you should at least have the decency to research what has been done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, If you feel this discussion is a waste of your valuable time, refrain from entering it, or commenting on it.
You'll be happier. So will the rest of the thread's participants.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What I want isn't a happy discussion, Scott. What I want is a planet where our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can live. What I want is to keep Bangladesh from ending up under 40 feet of water. What I want if for snow to keep falling in the Rocky Mountains. What I want is enough rainfall in Africa for people to grow crops. What I want are healthy coral reefs, polar bears, and pine trees. What I want is for people to recognize the scientific evidence out there is more than enough to cause serious concern that we could loose all those things.
Do you demand certainty that you will be in a wreck before you put your child in a safety seat?
We are playing russian roulet with our planet and using the justification that we can't be certain their is a bullet in the chamber.
The scientific evidence proves that our current life style is changing the atmosphere of our planet. It proves that these changes not only could irreversibly damage the planet but that this outcome is the most likely possibility.
If I thought anyone here would actually read a detailed discussion of the science, I'd take the days to post it. But if you won't go to the good scientific discussion I've referenced, why would you read it here? So instead, I'm just getting POd.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Although the last time I pointed this out, someone tried to convince me that airborne pollutants are a good thing
They make the sunrises and sunsets more colorful; true story.
I live in Los Angeles. I know. I would give up every beautiful sunset and sunrise for easier breathing.
True story.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: By the way, I'm obviously a total amateur in the realm of theoretical physics ... just read some Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and most recently, Smolin's book. I assumed that, while Smolin definitely had a point of view others would disagree with, at least the statistical claims he made about the popularity of string theory, etc, would be accurate, simply because they're the most checkable. Apparently, someone knows better Care to elaborate? On that, and on the claim of "intellectual dishonesty"?
*wince* Greene and Hawking? Both of whom are more interested in popularization than accuracy? (Which is not to say that their books are horrible. They're not at all. It's just that making them one's sole source on the relevant issues disturbs me greatly.)
Try some of Richard Feynman's stuff. And for more recent works, try Kip Thorne's. (Actually, Kip co-authored a book with Hawking and I forget who else that you might like. He's particularly good at making things understandable without oversimplifying or overgeneralizing.)
As far as Smolin's book, I confess to not having done more than glance through it. I'm paraphrasing my dad's opinion on the book. I don't know that he's interested in participating in another Hatrack discussion on the subject of string theory, but I'll see what I can do. (I have discussed details with him, but my comprehension and recall are not good enough for me to try to reproduce them in a post.)
I don't trust every so-called authority, but I do tend to rely on people whom I have verified to my satisfaction to be experts in a given field. Particularly if I know them well. My father is a reliable source on theoretical physics. Rabbit (and several other climatologists I know IRL) is a reliable source on climate change. I am fully aware that I do not understand all the relevant data -- and I have a bachelor's in chemistry.
Expecting the details of complex scientific theories to be accessible (in the comprehension sense) to the average layperson is a nice thought, but hardly realistic. As for the less-complex information, it is widely available from universities and other independent agencies. As I recall, Rabbit and others have given many online sources. And your local library may have others.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Wow, Rabbit. You really think that doubt is not allowable in this situation?
Jon Boy, Give me a specific argument which casts doubt on global warming. I don't mean an argument like, "some scientist at MIT says its wrong". I mean, explain one specific reason why you question Global Climate Science. If you or anyone else will go just that far to qualify why you doubt the science, then I will take the time to address your specific doubt.
So far the doubters in this thread have simply argued that its not enough to claim a consensus exists one needs to explain the science. There are a plethora of books and articles that explain the science, I've even referenced them. So I turn that question back to you. It is not enough to say you have your doubts. Tell me why you doubt.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I never said that I doubt it. I'm just surprised that you don't think doubt is even an option.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Rabbit, I realize that a lot of what you're saying is based on conversations we've had in the past, before my opinion had evolved, so it's understandable that you're kind of freaking out But you'll note that in this thread, I haven't declared Global Climate Change to be a myth.
I do have some general reservations (not specific to this debate) about treating predictions quite the same way as facts. Until we discover some means of manipulating time, "evidence" will always consist of things that have occured in the past, and assertions we make about the future will always be less solid than assertions we make about observed phenomena.
I'm also annoyed at a lot of the politics that surround the promotion of this theory, which makes the subject itself obnoxious to me, and makes all my pet peeves far more irritable when it comes up
But that said, I think it is fair, given the work that has been done so far, to give credence to the theory. It's still hard to know what policies ought to be based on it, but certainly, in contrast to some of the opinions I've seen here, I don't think that anyone is trying to bilk anyone else.
The problem for me right now (and let me know if this is inaccurate) is the fact that Global Climate Change projections seem to be so varied. There are a great many different climatological catastrophes being predicted, on different possible timetables (at least in the material that is typically available to me — different numbers every time). There also seems to be uncertainty about the exact degree to which human input is affecting the outcome, and to what degree we would need to rein it in, and when, to make a difference.
So the problem is, if we accept that this is happening, what do we do, right now? The kneejerk response is to hack our CO2 emissions. But is it possible to do enough to effect a dramatic change without causing an economic catastrophe? If not, what else can we do to prepare?
And shouldn't there be some means for us to get prepared, in general, for climate changes of all types? I mean, climate change, caused by man or not, is the one thing that seems to be constant about Earth's climate Civilizations have died before, not necessarily because they failed to stop a change to their climate (an act which would have been beyond many of their reach), but because they failed to react appropriately to it when the inevitable change arrived.
I wonder if our focus shouldn't be shifted, at least somewhat, towards survival and problem management, rather than solely on prevention?
Anyway, that's where my head is at right now, in case you wondered
***
Squick, somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you have no problem when someone says, "I'm an expert, and I don't have time to explain it to you amateurs, so just stop disagreeing with me," given that you say that to me pretty much every time your field of expertise comes up However, most people come to Hatrack, not necessarily to kneel humbly at the feet of intellectual giants like yourself, but rather to discuss interesting issues with people who, like themselves, realize they don't know everything, but still feel like they have something of value to contribute from their own experience.
I enjoy talking to a great many people on this board who know more than I do about stuff, and I have changed my opinion on a variety of issues because of things I've learned here.
However, all of those lessons were learned from people who didn't feel the need to wield their expertise like a bludgeon, who didn't treat their "inferiors" with contempt, and who thought I was worth discussing things with, rather than simply trumping me with authority, dismissing my opinion as beneath contempt, and "winning" the argument by default, at least in their own minds.
So while Hatrack is normally a wonderful place where a sharp college dropout like myself can engage in fascinating discussions, learn from accomplished people from many different fields and with many different backgrounds, and generally expand his mind, I have to say that trying to discuss things with you is probably the single most obnoxious experience I ever have on this board.
I realize that you are probably completely incapable of seeing yourself through other people's eyes, or you would have corrected your behavior on your own, long ago. So honestly, I can't blame you for the way I feel about your posts. But I hope you don't mind too terribly much if I continue this conversation by pretending that you do not exist. I think that the best way to ensure that I will remain civil to other people is to avoid the inevitably-frustrating chore of trying to communicate with you. So thanks! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Your average scientific theory can be explained on a popularizable level, in such a way that interested amateurs can get the gist of how it works. If that isn't enough (eg, it is forced to skim past too many important details) to convince, then an interested reader can look at increasingly complex explanations until he either finds a level where it is convincing, or finds a level where his doubts are confirmed for a solid reason.
Right you are. Well then, global warming occurs because CO2 (and some other gases) in the atmosphere do not absorb direct sunlight, but do absorb reflected infrared radiation. Add more of these kinds of gas, and the atmosphere traps more heat. Trivial!
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
I must disagree. If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true". (I note, for example, that you don't do any such thing for quantum mechanics, a much more "seemingly-incredible proposition"). In such a case you're going to have to rely on the reports of those who have taken the time to understand the issue. If people insisted on checking every counter-intuitive proposition for themselves, nobody would believe in general relativity. I think you're being quite inconsistent, here: You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications. Creationists use a rather similar approach to evolution, incidentally, although there it's the religious implications that are the problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: (To Squick) I have to say that trying to discuss things with you is probably the single most obnoxious experience I ever have on this board.
Aw. Don't you love me anymore? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
How much energy do your (not "yours" literally, of course) particle accelerators use, KoM? Are you prepared to close them down until our economy is carbon neutral?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true".
You'll note that that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm recognizing that a lot of people apparently have good reason to believe it, but I have my doubts. That's an honest assessment of the situation, it shows respect to the people who have devoted their time to the issue, and it doesn't argue against it the way "Well, that can't be true," does.
Regarding relativity, of course I was forced to have doubts about it until I understood how it worked, and how it was demonstrated experimentally. I remember when my dad first explained it to me as a kid, and I kept thinking, "If Newton was wrong, then Einstein might be wrong, too ... could the world really work that way?" Honestly, how could a person not doubt something like that? That doesn't mean I argued passionately against it, either. But to not doubt something that makes no sense to me just because other people say I shouldn't? That would be totally against my nature, and given your stance on religion, I thought it would be against yours.
I apply this standard wherever I can. I apply it to evolution, too (a theory that I pretty much wholeheartedly accept), and to my own faith. Quite a bit of what I believe is tentative to some degree or another, and is subject to constant reevaluation in light of expanding evidence and understanding. Is there a better way to approach knowledge than this?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Aw. Don't you love me anymore?
Haha You've actually gotten much better over the years, King. And while your initial insulting attitude annoyed me, its very brazenness made it easier to laugh off. "Wow, that guy really said that?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I'm just surprised that you don't think doubt is even an option.
I didn't say doubt wasn't an option. I was responding to Geoff's comment
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
In which he claims doubt is a perfectly legitimate position for someone how isn't interested enough to take the time to explore the issue.
Perhaps I should be more clear on why that isn't a legitimate position.
This isn't just an academic arguement. If what scientists have concluded is true, then we are facing a global humanitarian and ecological crisis. When doubting the scientist has the potential for such catastrophic consequences, doen't one have an ethical obligation with to either trust the experts or at least thoroughly investigate the issue before forming a contrary opinion.
If you were mayor of a town and NOAA contacted you saying a category five Hurricane was likely to hit your city in the next 3 days, would it be legitimate for you to allow doubts about the accuracy of meteorological forcast to direct your actions. Would the fact that you weren't interested in meteorology be a legitimate reason for you to fail to begin evacuating the city? If NOAA contacted you saying there was a 95% probability of the Hurrican hitting your town, but a local high school teach came to you with a different computer model that showed only 5% probability, would it be reasonable to base your policy on the doubts raised by the high school teacher? If it was your town and the mayor hadn't issued an evacuation order, would you consider "I doubted the accuracy of the NOAA predictions" to be a perfectly legitimate position.
Doubt is of course always an option, but in this case it is not a perfectly legitimate position. Given the potential consequences associate with Global Climate change, people have an ethical obligation to either rely on the experts or to fully research the subject until they have sufficient expertise to form an independet assessment of the risks. So in this case, saying I doubt the conclusions of the leading scientists but I'm not interested enough to investigate it myself is not a perfectly legitimate position.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm also annoyed at a lot of the politics that surround the promotion of this theory, which makes the subject itself obnoxious to me, and makes all my pet peeves far more irritable when it comes up.
Well Puppy, if you've got pet peeves in this area imagine how you'd feel if youd spent two decades building an understanding of the area only to have idiotic arguments like those implied in Lisa's post thrown out by people who won't even bother to read a single scientific article on the subject.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If you were mayor of a town and NOAA contacted you saying a category five Hurricane was likely to hit your city in the next 3 days, would it be legitimate for you to allow doubts about the accuracy of meteorological forcast to direct your actions.
To direct them? No. To affect them? Certainly. A conscientious mayor should also prepare for the hurricane to veer off in another direction, and be ready to send aid elsewhere if necessary.
Like I said before, it doesn't need to be "either/or" ... we can tentatively accept something and prepare for it, while maintaining in our minds the notion that it might be wrong. Doing so can only make us wiser and better-prepared.
That's what I'm doing with Global Climate Change. I want to take it seriously, and act on our best predictions, but I don't want it to turn into a dogma that causes people to stop thinking rationally (which plenty of folks have already done — outside your illustrious circle, of course). I want to balance it against other considerations, and I want to make sure we're intelligently examining all of our policy options. There should be no offense in that.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Well Puppy, if you've got pet peeves in this area imagine how you'd feel if youd spent two decades building an understanding of the area only to have idiotic arguments like those implied in Lisa's post thrown out by people who won't even bother to read a single scientific article on the subject.
You do realize I'm reconciling with you, right? Just not sure whether to read this in the angry tone that it seems to suggest.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit:
I realize I didn't elaborate when I said on page one:
quote: I accept the general principle of global warming. Even if I didn't, cutting back on greenhouse gasses seems like a good idea, and I'd support it.
So I will now, since you seem to think I'm opposed to the science:
I believe that the climate changes scientists are observing are direct effects of human influence.
So. There you go.
My objection has nothing at all to do with science, but with the dismissive attitude exhibited in this thread. It doesn't really matter to me that you SAY you're an expert; Samprimary's the one who provided the links that effectively dismantled much of the thrust of the first post. Kudos to him.
quote:When doubting the scientist has the potential for such catastrophic consequences, doen't one have an ethical obligation with to either trust the experts or at least thoroughly investigate the issue before forming a contrary opinion.
When someone asks, "Do you, I say, Do YOU BELIEVE?" the answer is not "YES! YES! I BELIEVE!" but
"IN WHAT?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
How much energy do your (not "yours" literally, of course) particle accelerators use, KoM? Are you prepared to close them down until our economy is carbon neutral?
Your point about the particle accelerators is well taken; no, I should not care to shut them down, and they do use a lot of energy. But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief. It should affect only what actions you take to rectify the situation, assuming of course that you come down on the side of belief.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief.
The effect something will have on you does effect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Puppy, you are undeservedly getting the brunt of my wrath. You are correct that my responses are based largely on previous discussions and not necessarily even discussions with you. That's exacerabated by a serious life altering crises that's going on in my life right now.
You are right Puppy that there is alot of uncertainty in predictions. There is an enormous amount of effort into putting probabilities on the different scenarios and in estimating how different changes in emisions will influence the outcomes. Perhaps the largest uncertains come because we can not accurately predict how the global ocean currents will change for a given change in the surface air temperatures. We also don't understand how all the feedback loops will work. For example, right thawing of the permfrost in Siberia is causing massive releases of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a greenhouse gas, it will result in further warmer. If effects like this are widespread we could enter a period of run away warming.
Given what we know, it is certainly time to make the kinds of changes that we know the economy can absorb. Higher gas mileage standards, better public transit systems, higher energy efficiency standards for buildings, more renewable energy, recycling, less packaging and so on. There are a very large number of measures which have been identified which will have either a neutral or positive effect on the economy.
But I think that the potential consequences of Global Warming are so severe, that we have a moral obligation to go beyond the easy steps. I think its time we start making some serious sacrifices. America enjoys the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world. Certainly we can afford to make sacrifices without devastating the economy. Part of what we need to do is change the way we look at the economy so that we are looking at real human well being rather than simply job creation and sales numbers. Something is seriously wrong when consumers are encouraged to spend more money on stuff they never knew they needed or wanted so that other people can work longer hours than they want to.
We need the sort of vision that FDR had in WW II when he said
quote:As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle, we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."
The price for civilization must be paid in hard work and sorrow and blood. The price is not too high.
We need someone with the courage to rally sacrifice from the American people. We need policies that ensure any economic down turns that result from mitigating greenhouse emissions don't hurt the poorest members of society.
I keep hearing politicians who are afraid to ask any sacrifice from the American people. Have we Americans become so decadent that we are truly unwilling to drive a more fuel efficient car so that our children will live in a more stable world. Are we truly unwilling to give up anything to save the lives of the millions of people whos homes will be under water in 50 years?
Its true that there is no guarantee that any sacrifice we make will be enough nor is catastrophy certain if we do nothing. But the same was true when our nation decided that rationing and higher taxes were worth the risk in WW II. I'm glad they made that decision. I hope our grandchildren will be as lucky.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
You are using the kind of hyperbole that is typical of this debate. The Kyoto treaty only required that we return to 1990 levels of CO2 emissions. The city of Salt Lake has already exceeded that goal by a few modest changes that have actually saved the city money.
Based on my understanding, we will ultimately need to do far more than is required by Kyoto, but even if you feel evidence is insufficient to warrant major life changes, doesn't it warrant some change? Why do so many people oppose making even modest changes like those required in the Kyoto treaty?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:America enjoys the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world.
While it doesn't really affect your argument, this statment needs a "one of" in there.
[/tangent]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My objection has nothing at all to do with science, but with the dismissive attitude exhibited in this thread. It doesn't really matter to me that you SAY you're an expert.
I'm sorry Scott R. You are taking the brunt for a history of my comments in Global Climate Change threads at hatrack. Once apon a time I used to take the time to give serious scientific explanations in Climate Change threads at hatrack. I'd even post references to the papers I've published on atmospheric chemistry and to my homepage when people questions whether our not I have the credentials I claimed. It made no difference and so I'm unwilling to put forth the effort again.
I'm sorry you have been unfairly painted by my broad sweeping brush today. As I indicated before, my really life is seriously bad right now and I have unfairly allowed that to influence my hatrack manners.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I keep hearing politicians who are afraid to ask any sacrifice from the American people. Have we Americans become so decadent that we are truly unwilling to drive a more fuel efficient car so that our children will live in a more stable world.
I hate it when politicians do this-- using the family to further their arguments.
Stop fearmongering.
I agree with you. Bush missed the perfect opportunity to ask for the sacrifices you talk about in the weeks after 9/11.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:America enjoys the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world.
While it doesn't really affect your argument, this statment needs a "one of" in there.
Interesting data. Last time I looked at the numbers was 2003, when the US was 2nd overall and 1st corrected for purchasing power. I wonder how much of the change reflects the drop in the value of the US dollar since that time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are using the kind of hyperbole that is typical of this debate. The Kyoto treaty only required that we return to 1990 levels of CO2 emissions. The city of Salt Lake has already exceeded that goal by a few modest changes that have actually saved the city money.
No, it's not. You yourself say that fixing the problem will require more than Kyoto:
quote:Based on my understanding, we will ultimately need to do far more than is required by Kyoto
Emphasis mine. We rely on fossil fuels for 90% of energy consumption. Eventually, we need to get that to 0%. Short term changes don't need to go that far, and, if nothing else buy us time to get to zero fossil fuel use (assuming abiotic theories are incorrect). But, unless we do that, CO2 will continue to increase.
So please don't me of hyperbole simply because I can recognize that changing the energy source for 90% of our economy is an almost total overhaul of the way we live.
quote:but even if you feel evidence is insufficient to warrant major life changes, doesn't it warrant some change? Why do so many people oppose making even modest changes like those required in the Kyoto treaty?
You don't know my opinion on either the Kyoto treaty or CO2 reduction in general.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So please don't me of hyperbole simply because I can recognize that changing the energy source for 90% of our economy is an almost total overhaul of the way we live.
Your comment implies that any response to global climate change would require a total overhaul of the way we live. I pointed out one response which required only modest changes. If this is not what you meant, what did you mean? From the context of the discussion, this is the most obvious interpretation but even in your more recent discussion, I still think you statement is hyperbolic.
First, I will point out that it is unclear that we will need to reduce fossil fuels burning to zero in order to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 levels. Right now, the oceans and the biosphere are compensating for about 1/3 of the CO2 we are emitting so there is hope that atmospheric CO2 levels could be stabilized without reducing emissions to zero. Furthermore numerous technologies are being explored which would allow us to sequester the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burned. These technologies could enable us to continue using fossil fuels without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
There are of course other reasons we will need to reduce fossil fuels emissions to zero. Most notably, fossil fuels will eventually run out or become to expensive to be practical. Although the time line for that is in question, the basic idea is irrefutable.
But even if you maintain that the implications of science indicate we will have to reduce our fossil fuels use to zero, you statement is still hyperbole because a total overhaul of the way we get energy does not necessarily equate to a total overhaul of the way we live.
If for example tomorrow there was a sudden break through in fusion technology which would allow us to replace all the electricity currently generated by burning coal with cheap clean renewable fusion generated electricity, we would have a clear path to eliminating fossil fuels use that would not require any significant overhaul of the way we live.
If tomorrow GM released an electric car that could be rapidly charged with inexpensive solar energy, we could eliminate most of our oil use with very minor changes in the way we live.
While I admit that these are unlikely scenarios, there are many such scenarios in which would allow for a smooth transition from fossil fuels use to renewable energy sources that don't require a total overhaul of the way we live even though they would require a significant overhaul in the way we generate electricity or power our cars.
All of the serious proposals regarding a response to Global Climate Change involve a combination of increased efficiency, conservation, new technologies for using fossil fuels and development of renewable resources. Those changes will require a significant effort but they do not equate to a "total change in the way we live our lives".
Heck, even in a worst case scenario in which we have to get by on the 10% of our energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuels resources, I suspect we still marry, have children, worship god (or not), learn and breath much as we do now. So "total change in teh way we live out lives" is definitely hyperbole.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So "total change in teh way we live out lives" is definitely hyperbole.
Good. I didn't say that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your comment implies that any response to global climate change would require a total overhaul of the way we live....From the context of the discussion, this is the most obvious interpretation
No, it's not. It's not even an obvious interpretation. My comment implies that a solution to global warming - not just any old response - will require ALMOST a total overhaul of the way we live.
quote:I pointed out one response which required only modest changes.
A response that is basically inadequate. You stated yourself that we will need to do far more than the Kyoto protocols. One city meeting the Kyoto protocols does not solve global warming.
I certainly didn't mean "any thing that someone calls a response to global warning." I meant "something that someone calls a response to global warming that will actually stop the problems associated with it."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oooo, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's my Global Climate Change mantra:
Most every suggestion made for the cutting of emissions is the best possible thing we could do for our country, and it has nothing at all to do with global warming. Everyone always makes two arguments about it that I think come up the most:
1. It's too expensive/it will bankrupt us. 2. We won't know for like a 100 years, so why waste the effort when we might be wrong?
The first argument is the exact opposite of what will happen, and it's so far off, I wonder if people have done ANY reading on the subject. Two is silly too, and I'll get to why.
First of all, the burning of fossil fuels and other toxic emissions causes billions of dollars a year in health problems. A few months ago a massive cloud of coal soot/smog literally massed together in China (a horribly horrible producer of toxic wastes), sailed over the Atlantic Ocean and landed in Calinornia. They have sheets on high hills and mountains there that measure air quality, and the cloud turned them blacker than they've ever seen. Which only proves that what we do at home has global consequences, and the same thing for them and us. Air quality/water quality, NATURE quality, matters, and not just because of the intrinsic value of pretty trees and clouds. Poor air quality causes a host of health issues that we have to PAY for. If the highest concern of people opposed to cutting emissions is that it will cost too much, they just don't know what they are talking about. Treating health problems relating to pollution costs billions, and billions most in lost productivity, and in lower property values for some areas.
Second, I'm FINALLY starting to hear this from national politicians, but energy independence is a NATIONAL DEFENSE issue. It's not just Greenpeace and tree huggers. Being independent for our own energy concerns gives us a HUGE advantage. Part of the reason Japan declared war on the US was because we cut off oil supplies to Japan, it's also why they drove so hard towards oil fields. They needed resources, they were DEPENDENT on foreign sources, and they still are today. No foreign power should have the ability to threaten us by cutting off oil supplies. We shouldn't be giving BILLIONS of dollars to our enemies and potential enemies because they have oil. We shouldn't be politically supporting dictators and mad men because they have oil. And we shouldn't have to worry about the stability of nations because they have oil. We should be able to produce everything we need for our daily lives here at home, and it will give us a much freer hand in dealing with foreign policy. While China and other competitors are clamoring for shrinking resources, and while they are killing their wildlife and their citizens with nasty polluting, smog creating chemicals and noxious gases, we'll be breathing easy, and we'll be saving money too.
Three: $$$$. Anyone who says it here is CRAZY if they think that a Green Economy is going to bankrupt us. It's going to renew our status as an economic powerhouse. There are billions upon billions of dollars to be made in Green business. Do you think Exxon, GE, and dozens of other HUGE corporations would be sinking billions of dollars in research into these fields if they felt they weren't profitable? GE is a major producer of turbines and fan blades for wind power, they're selling them all over the world for big bucks. Innovators all over the US are coming up with new ways of turning solar power into big money, and it IS big money. Designers are creating eco-friendly buildings that produce their own power and water, and that's making them money AND their customers money. Costs are coming down dramatically for renewable energy. Wave and tidal power is just starting to be heavily invested in too, with incredible promise. Being a world leader in clean energy means being able to EXPORT that and make big money. To say nothing of the money we can save here at home. I think our next big domestic energy project should be to get solar panels on the roof of every home in the US. It'll cut our energy needs down dramatically, and will drastically raise the value of homes and cut the energy bills of homeowners. Government should subsidize the program.
The CEOs of I think 10 major companies a couple weeks ago, including DuPont and GE wrote Bush a letter saying the government needs to make reductions in greenhouse gases MANDATORY and not voluntary. This from the leading major businesses in the nation. The same people opponents of change are saying will lose money.
Future energy for cars will bring Ford and GM back into competitiveness as well. Hydrogen cars, biodiesel, these are the types of things they are actually on par for with their Japanese competitors. And using switchgrass (which sounded funny when Bush mentioned it, but he wasn't wrong) and other such fuel sources mean we can literally grow our fuel every year. Switchgrass by the way yields three times as much fuel per acre as corn does. If we can ever make clean coal a reality too, we have a 200 year or more supply of coal that's domestically available. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Green America means eco-friendly AND rich. And safe. And healthy. And we aren't all going to die from an ice age. If you all want to keep arguing about whether or not humans are contributing to global climate change, that's fine. But let's be clear what we are talking about here. A Green economy is going to be a BOON to America, in at least a half dozen ways, to say nothing of how nice it would be to lord it over the rest of the world .
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If we get by on the 10% of energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuel resources... if energy were luxury rather than necessity, maybe the cost of energy would only go up tenfold. So it costs ten times as much to heat your house or drive to work. Everything that's transported has its transport costs go up tenfold. Maybe increased conservation and giving up those trips to Disney World would cut it back to eightfold? Sevenfold? We'd still have worldwide depression, and old people freezing to death in their homes.
But we *can't* do without energy, so it would be far worse than that. We can't feed 7.5 billion people without factory farming, and without using energy to transport that food. Billions would starve. Even if our leaders were monsters who were willing to let billions die for this theory, we wouldn't let them.
This explains the Kyoto accords. The proposed Kyoto limits would reduce CO2 so little that the projected CO2 concentration in 2020 (say) is achieved not in 2020 but around 2023. A symbolic act.
(Note: I'm not arguing against Lyrhawn here; I just happened to post after him. He's proposing R&D, I think, which is a great idea. I'm arguing against significant reductions in CO2 emissions, right now, needing only "minor adjustments.")
[ January 26, 2007, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should add I've seen some great test trials done involving carbon sequestration. Carbon can be pumped into oil fields to give much higher yields of oil and extend oil field lives by dozens of years, and then the fields are capped off and the carbon is trapped there.
I've also seen some great stuff done with algae. Carbon is captured from the stacks of large power plants and fed into tubes where algae is being farmed. It works basically like a carbon sink, the algae eats the CO2 and creates O2 as a byproduct, the water and the CO2 both come directly from the power plant. The algae can then either be used as biofuel, or as feed for livestock, or as farm supplements. It's still in the trial stages, but a lot of powerplants in Arizona and other western states are starting to team up with private enterprise to make it happen on a larger scale. It takes up a lot of acreage to make happen if they want to kill ALL of the CO2 from the plant, but the byproduct, the algae, is really, really valuable stuff (more and more as they discover more uses for it). Which I think makes the acreage worthwhile, it's not like we (in the US anyway) don't have the room to spare.
Edit to add two things:
1. Lyrhawn is a he. He can prove it if need be
2. I'm not just proposing R&D, though I think there is a lot to be done there. I'm saying there is a LOT of stuff we can be doing right NOW until the rest comes into play.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Lyrhawn is a he. He can prove it if need be
I think I'll pass on the proof!
[ January 26, 2007, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, The problem here is that your comment occurred within the context of a wider debate that is on going here at hatrack and in the world. Your comment wasn't even in response to a part of the debate you had been involved in previously. So look at that context. First lets look at the hatrack part of it.
In response to numerous comments for Geoff, KOM wrote
quote:I must disagree. If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true". (I note, for example, that you don't do any such thing for quantum mechanics, a much more "seemingly-incredible proposition"). In such a case you're going to have to rely on the reports of those who have taken the time to understand the issue. If people insisted on checking every counter-intuitive proposition for themselves, nobody would believe in general relativity. I think you're being quite inconsistent, here: You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
You then responded that
quote:More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
So the implication here is that proponents of Global Climate Change science are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
While this may be true of some proponents of Global Climate Change science, it is hardly true of all or even most people who are arguing that the theory is compelling. The most common case people are trying to make is that Global Climate Change science is solid enough that we should be conserving energy, improving efficiency and accelerating research and development of alternative energy sources. Its true that if the science proves to be as compelling as it currently appears, we will need to do far more than these initial steps but very few people are making a case that the science is currently sufficient an immediate nearly total change in the way we live.
What's more, this debate is occuring in a global context in which many people are continueing to argue that Global Climate Change is a hoax and who oppose any response to the science on any scale. There are many people who promote life boat ethics. They seriously argue that responding to Global Climate Change will be so devastating to our current way of life that we should let everyone in Bangladesh die rather than make any changes. There are people who seriously argue that Al Gore's first book on climate change was promoting the same response as the Unibomber's manifesto which advocated we completely abandon the technological lifestyle.
In that environment your statement is indeed hyperbole. It implies two extremes. We either accept the theory and start living the dugouts like the unibomber or reject the theory and continue life as usually. Your statement seems to ignore the middle ground assumed by most proponents of climate change. The middle ground that says we should begin taking prudent action now.
If you live in Florida, evacuating every time a Hurricane forms in the west Atlantic would be foolish. But keeping an emergency 72 hour kit available and having a good family plan in case of a hurricane is only prudent. When scientists estimate that there is a 5% chance the Hurricane will hit your home, its still probably premature to evacuate but it would be a prudent time to fill the tank with gas, review emergency plans with the kids, and perhaps stock up on emergency supplies. If the estimate turns to 50% chance, then a prudent person starts to seriously consider evacuating and putting boards over their windows and the like. As the probability of severe damage increases, a prudent person will make bigger and bigger sacrifices to minimize the damage. There is a full spectrum of responses. It is not just a question of should I stay or should I go.
The same is true of global climate change. Maybe teh scientific evidence isn't compelling enough for you almost totally change the way you live but that doesn't mean its a hoax and we should not begin prudent action.
Perhaps we will need to almost totally change the way we live in response to our scientific understanding of what greenhouse emissions are doing to our planet. But not responding to the theory also has potentially catastrophic consequences. Your comment begs the question "What if we almost totally change our lives and it turns out the scientists were wrong?" I turn that question to you. "What if we fail to respond to scientists warnings and it turns out they were right?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was making a comment on human nature and the types of proof needed to cause someone to take action, Rabbit. Once again, you have no idea what my opinion is on the matter.
quote:What's more, this debate is occuring in a global context in which many people are continueing to argue that Global Climate Change is a hoax and who oppose any response to the science on any scale.
This debate is also occurring in the context in which "some proponents of Global Climate Change science" "are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives."
quote:Your comment begs the question "What if we almost totally change our lives and it turns out the scientists were wrong?"
No, it doesn't. It asserts that the greater the action demanded by a given theory, the greater the proof needed to get them to accept the theory to an extent sufficient to motivate them to react.
quote:I turn that question to you. "What if we fail to respond to scientists warnings and it turns out they were right?"
You are asking questions based on false assumptions of my attitudes and beliefs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No, it doesn't. It asserts that the greater the action demanded by a given theory, the greater the proof needed to get them to accept the theory to an extent sufficient to motivate them to react.
True. But I still disagree that this is the most natural interpretation of your original statement. Because you specifically referred to the most extreme actions which any one is demanding based on the current global climate change, you were presenting a very biased version of your current statement. You are an accomplished enough debater to know the result of choosing such an example in this case.
quote:This debate is also occurring in the context in which "some proponents of Global Climate Change science" "are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives."
Who aside from the Unibomber is making a case for a near total overhaul of the way we live our lives. This is an accusation I hear commonly from those who call global climate change theory a hoax but not one I've actually seen from the other side. I taught a class on energy resources last semester so I'm pretty up to date on the proposals that are out there and "an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives" isn't an accurate description of what's truly being proposed its a straw man which has been built by those who oppose any change at all.
BTW, I don't consider a proposal in which we gradually reduce our energy use through increased efficiency and replace fossil fuels with alternatives over a period of 50 years to be "an almost total overhaul or the way we live our lives". While its true that this would result in substantial changes in the organization of our communities and our infrastructure over the next half century, changes of a similar magnitude have occurred over the last half century and will likely occur even in the absense of a climate crisis. In reality, all of the proposals I know of for dealing with greenhouse emissions are designed to preserve as much as possible of our current quality of life. If we do nothing at all to combat climate changes, the way we live our lives will change totally and certainly in far worse ways than if we take action.
quote:You are asking questions based on false assumptions of my attitudes and beliefs.
And what would that assumption be?
My question was intended to point out that while people generally require greater proof when greater action is required, most people will also act with less proof when the percieved consequences of inaction are great. My point was simple that people should ask both questions.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
[tangent]Does anyone else feel that Dag is engaging in a semantic game of putting his finger an inch away from Rabbit's arm and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?
Dag, it seems like you keep making arguments, but then doubling back and saying you aren't making any definite arguments. It really feels like you're semantically dancing around, intentionally not saying anything solid so that you can come back and say "You have no idea what my opinion is".[/tangent]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here's the thing, the current spike in temperature is higher than it has been in the last 2,000 years. Though that is not totally signficant because the current Hot Age has been around for close to 15,000 years.
However, Hot Ages are very short relative to Ice Ages. A typical Hot Age, or more accurately an Interglacial Period, lasts roughly 20,000 years, whereas the typcial Ice Age or Glacial Period typically last 100,000 years. Once the Ice Age begins, the temperature steadily drops until if bottoms out, and then a new Hot Age will begin.
The rise to the Hot Age plateau of temperatures is usually relatively fast in geological time. The decent into an ice age usually starts with a dramatic drop followed by a slow decline. The little ripple in temperature we are now experiencing is nothing compared the extreme drop in temperature that results at the peak (or more accurately the bottom) of the Ice Age.
We are currently experiencing fluctuations of temperature of a degree or two. When the Ice age comes with it's fullest fury, temperatures will drop EIGHT DEGREES, and the Ice Sheets will easily reach down to the 45 degree Latitude. Which means that Bordeaux, France and Milano, Italy, and a vast majority of the State of Minnesota will be covered by ice sheet.
What precedes every Ice Age is an extreme upward spike in global temperatures, which consistently coincides with an increase in green house gases. That spike in temperatures consistently over the history of earth has started a long downward spiral into an Ice Age.
If we can soften temperature spikes, then there is a possibility that we can hold of the next Ice Age. Again, Hot Ages are short; typically 10,000 to 20,000 years, we are roughly 12,000 to 18,000 years into the current Hot Age. Ice Ages typically lasts 50,000 to 100,000 years. Believe me, we do not want to precipitate another Ice Age even though the span of active events is over thousands of years. Using current energy resources, the human race as we know it can not sustain itself though another ice age.
Now don't get me wrong, the human race will not be wiped out. But it will mean a HUGE change in life style. Subsistence Farming, and nomadic wandering in the southern regions will be common place.
Even if technology advances and we find some sustainable source of fuel to heat and light our homes, Canada will be gone, most of Northern Europe will be gone, most of the Northern United States will be gone, all covered by ice. That also means that those northern forests that we depend on are also gone. All that means huge population shifts to very small tracts of available land in the south (speaking as a dweller in the Northern hemisphere).
Of course, we need not worry, we will all be dead by then, but what we do now has an affect on how soon that happens. A spike in green house gases invariably causes a spike in temperature and when that is extreme enough, it causes the collape of the current Hot Age and a steady 100,000 year decent into the next Ice Age. Can we really afford to lose 50% of the worlds land mass for 100,000 years?
Global Warming is in itself a problem, but it is a minor problem compared to the long term consequences of an extreme upward spike in temperature.
Doom and gloom; it's inevitable.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I am certainly not an expert on this issue, but I wanted to mention something I haven't seen brought up thus far. I'll admit that it's been a few years since I've done any amount of research on this issue, so it's also possible that I am misremembering or new evidence has changed previous theories.
With that disclaimer in place, it is my understanding that average global temperature increase is not equal across the entire globe. That is, the temperature has increased more in specific areas (closer to the poles) than in others (say, the equator).
Now assuming this is true, why is global warming always treated as an obviously negative thing? Since the Earth is hardly designed to support billions of humans and massive civilizations, it is entirely possible that changing the Earth's natural course could be beneficial to humanity's survival.
I can see a pretty obvious benefit from the tundras in Siberia and northern Canada increasing significantly in temperature.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't like the delineation into support or denial camps, though it's sometimes an efficient way to measure the debates about the subject which occur on the internet. Frequently.
Usually it's marked up too extensively, ramped into a view that posits that the other side is an 'extreme.'
- The supporters and scientists become doomsayers, and it's claimed that they are zealotically certain and want us to change our lifestyle completely and make profound sacrifices to our personal perks and and economy, and talk with dire certainty about how we're apocalyptically ruining the planet.
- The detractors and critics become ignorant brick walls who are steadfastly denying everything and refusing critical thought in their analyses, convinced that not even an iota of global warming theory is or could be true.
The reality is that both (1) and (2) are pretty rare and do not exist outside of the fringes of political thought. I've met both, and typically there's more wrong with a person in either category than just their inability to reasonably parse the real situation.
Yet, without fail, there's a significant quantity of people who like to describe their opposition as being predominantly like one of the two categories mentioned. It's a false categorization which does little to advance the debate.
But, it's not like there's much of a debate anymore. The scientific world is not actually anything like category one, but there's plenty they do know now. The climatologists aren't the ones who are doing the doomsaying, apocalyptic, mega-sacrifice talk, and they aren't the ones who are saying "global warming is FACT and it is a FACT that we know that exactly THIS and THIS will happen." Really, if you were to simplify the actual concerns and findings that they address, it comes right down to this:
1. Global temperatures are rising due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 2. Man-made (anthropogenic) factors are contributing. 3. It is disconcertingly evident that our anthropogenic influence could be creating a 'climate forcing' which can cause wide-reaching changes in our environment that are sparked by our CO2 output. 4. These forcings could create environmental repercussions which will most likely be more expensive and punitive to humanity than the cost of preventative action. 5. We should you know maybe do something about this probably kinda perhaps. Regulations on industry output seems like the most logical choice, if we want to limit or reverse the impact.
The findings are stark and clear and the presentations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are attempting everything in the power of language to assure people that there is not really any scientific controversy over the fundamental findings of climatological and ecological sciences, and it is the result of decades of exhaustive, empirical research.
Global warming is real. Really! And it's actually concerning, and we should do something about it. In the recent months, it has become extraordinarily hard to continue to be a global warming denier. Most people who still as of six months ago thought that the whole phenomenon was 'a load of crap' have fallen eerily silent or limit their continued disbelief to a series of 'roundabout' criticisms as it becomes more and more patently difficult to come to terms with the fact that ideology compelled them to listen to the wrong authorities on the matter. It's okay. You were wrong. You're also (hopefully) a grownup and can move on beyond this.
To all such parties I can only recommend that they grow up and catch up with the reality of the issue. There's plenty of things that we should be discussing, like the extent of possible damage, the feasibility of reform, and the effectiveness of different protective plans. The things that we should not be discussing are whether or not 'consensus' means anything (it does), whether or not these scientists really should be trusted (they should), whether or not global warming constitutes a threat to the well-being of the human species (it does), whether global warming is a hoax propogated by statists/socialists/hippies/ecofascists/anti-business types/whatever (it's not). Everywhere I go, there's at least a handful of people who clearly need to wash up and go home if they don't want to get their head in the game, because their contributions keep the discussions from being able to mature beyond basic levels. They stymie real debate. It's hard to have a substantive discussion about things like 'which mechanisms of the Kyoto treaty should be adopted into future binding economic agreements, and which ones are counterproductive' when a vocal cluster continues to be determined to drag the debate back down to 'global warming is a hoax' versus 'no it's not.' We should be years beyond ever having to return here.
A version of the same lecture should also apply to zealotic adherents of global warming lore. It's okay to question the extent of global warming's effects. For everything we do know now, there's ten times as much which is still a reasonable mystery! It's especially reasonable to call media hype into question, since there's lots of sensationalism in press and punditry that doesn't match the statements of science at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does anyone else feel that Dag is engaging in a semantic game of putting his finger an inch away from Rabbit's arm and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?
No, the actual analogy is that Rabbit walked by while I was pointing at KoM and said, "Stop touching me." My response of "I'm not touching you" is merely an attempt to not be misrepresented.
I specifically chose to make a single comment about a general - and what I believed to be mistaken - statement about the nature of belief and changing belief. I intentionally did not engage the more specific question because, frankly, these things are NEVER productive here and they bore me.
However, the nature of changing belief and the self-destructive tactics of advocates who decide that those who don't share their view are irrational do interest me. KoM made a comment that underscores the reason why so many advocates do their cause more harm than good. I commented with a generality.
Rabbit can spout paragraphs about how this isn't really an almost total overhaul of the way people live all she wants.
The point is that people perceive it to be an almost total overhaul.
Why this is so doesn't matter for the purposes of my comment. KoM made a comment about why a particular standard of belief was being applied to global warming but not quantum mechanics. My reply was an explanation of the difference. He seemed perfectly capable of understanding my comment in context.
I'm so sick of the "semantic game" B.S. I participated not in the larger discussion of global warming but in the much smaller discussion of standards of proof.
quote:Dag, it seems like you keep making arguments, but then doubling back and saying you aren't making any definite arguments. It really feels like you're semantically dancing around, intentionally not saying anything solid so that you can come back and say "You have no idea what my opinion is".
No, I'm confining my discussion to specific aspects of the situation. Again, I didn't address Rabbit. There was a reason for that.
quote:BTW, I don't consider a proposal in which we gradually reduce our energy use through increased efficiency and replace fossil fuels with alternatives over a period of 50 years to be "an almost total overhaul or the way we live our lives".
Yes, but you also said that even if this were true:
quote:even in a worst case scenario in which we have to get by on the 10% of our energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuels resources
My statement would still be hyperbole. We're operating from such different definitions that reconciliation is impossible.
I don't really care. My original point was valid, it was interpreted in the way I intended it to be interpreted by the person to whom it was addressed, and it was specifically clarified based on a point raised in response.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Maybe you would benefit from a block statement of position to clarify where you are coming from and where you are going with it, since these sorts of things are notoriously difficult to discern in games of quote-tag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The effect something will have on you does effect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
That's it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The data has been put out here before: correlation of global temperatures to sunspot activity and to C-14 concentration; past warming periods; current global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. The evidence is strong that it's the sun that causes these temperature variations; but it seems unlikely that that the evidence has the power to resolve the debate. So let's consider instead: what will the world do, based on its beliefs?
We won't do anything to significantly reduce CO2 emissions until it becomes possible to do this without wiping out a significant chunk of the world's population.
We won't even do enough to risk economic slowdown. Parties in power lose power when the economy heads south, and they hate that. Kyoto would have caused a slight delay in CO2 increase -- that's all -- and America wouldn't sign that and Europe wouldn't comply with what it signed. If we won't do that, you can forget carbon taxes at levels that will have much of an effect.
So what *are* the options of those that adopt this theory?
1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial.
2. Raise consciousness. Makes people feel good about themselves, but it won't keep CO2 emissions from increasing.
3. Nuclear power. It works, we know how to do it, and it can deliver a lot of energy, so it can significantly reduce the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Why *wouldn't* global warming alarmists (I'd be happy to know a more polite term -- help!) urge the building of a lot more nuclear plants, and plead with their fellow environmentalists to stop suing to stop every proposed facility? Why aren't they doing it right now?
If human-generated CO2 poses even less of a risk than nuclear power, it must not be much to worry about.
When someone really thinks the hurricane's going to hit (using Rabbit's analogy), that someone doesn't discuss changes in tax structure and propose other people fund research into hurricane protection measures. He gets on the evacuation route.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Will B
Why *wouldn't* global warming alarmists (I'd be happy to know a more polite term -- help!) urge the building of a lot more nuclear plants, and plead with their fellow environmentalists to stop suing to stop every proposed facility? Why aren't they doing it right now?
Because Nuclear Power is a self-defeating game. It seems cost effective; you start it up and it creates heat, and the heat creates electricity. Just one small problem, a nuclear plant also creates deadly toxic waste that is going to remain deadly and toxic for at least 100,000 years.
Further, if there is an environmental disaster related to the storage of toxic nuclear waste, the results will probably be more devistating that all the wars in modern history combined. It will poison the earth for 1,000 lifetimes.
I simply do not trust man to be responsible enough to manage deadly nuclear waste for 100,000 years.
Of course, there is a solution, let us build a EXTREMELY large warehouse just a few blocks from where you live, and the world can store this deadly poison there? What do you say?
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A nuclear plant doesn't create much such waste, particularly if it is allowed to reprocess fuel (unfortunately, this also creates significantly more weapons-grade material).
I have no idea what environmental disaster would cause such a catastrophe. I suppose if we stored the fuel inside of an active volcano an explosion could spread the waste over a considerable distance, but beyond that I've got nothing. Nuclear waste, provided people are kept away from it and it is prevented from going to people, is harmless. Even if some leakage, such as into the local water supply, occurred, the harm would only be to people in the immediate vicinity; it wouldn't even be as horrible as a single battle in many wars.
If we reprocess, the half-life is reduced too, so it won't last anywhere near 100,000 years. Heck, most modern waste would only be near its highest level of radioactivity for another 1000 years: http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
On what do you base your assertions about some disaster related to nuclear waste being able to cause such devastating results? I have never seen a similar assertion based in fact.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Will -
quote:1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial
What is that based on?
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story. a very good book, if anyone has the time to give it a read.
im still undecided on this whole global warming issue. instincts tell me to believe it, but im not sure. plus what Mr Crichton said about believing psuedo-sciences at the end of State of Fear has kept me from believing to ofirmly in one side or the other just yet.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[ducks and covers]
It's good to learn the signs of an incoming flame war Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Seconding State of Fear as a good book...
*runs back to the shadow she's lurking in*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And thirding State of Fear.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Of course, there is a solution, let us build a EXTREMELY large warehouse just a few blocks from where you live, and the world can store this deadly poison there? What do you say?
I spent three of my four college years living directly on top of the world's first nuclear waste (created at the cyclotron on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis). The only effect it seems to have had is to make my hair-trigger reaction to bulls*** a tad more sensitive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Will -
quote:1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial
What is that based on?
Based on Rabbit's figure of 10% of our energy coming from alternatives; the limits on conservation (we can't make our tractor-trailers 10 times more fuel efficient -- if we could, we'd be doing it), and most of all, on the vast expansion of fossil fuel use in China and India.
These aren't hard numbers, but you can look those up as well as I.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Here, here.
I just want to add that I do believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence that global warming is taking place.
I also think that if we wait till we can prove one way or the other that we are actually causing it, it will be too late to reverse it.
The time to do something about it is now.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story.
Woah ... that many eye rolls in close proximity to each other looks really neat. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That does seem to be the contention.
Should I go for the maximum this time?
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
FTR - I'm saying it's a good book, not that everything in it is factual... : )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Day By Day cartoon was a perfect example of what not to drag the discussion down to!
Couldn't have found a better example if I'd tried.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
State of Fear might be based on some valid science -- much SF is -- but it's still fiction. Just as we wouldn't consult Star Trek to tell us anything solid about quantum mechanics, despite its "Heisenberg compensators" and "quantum torpedoes," we can't rely on fiction to tell us what's nonfictional.
Besides which, if anybody grants State of Fear as worthy in debate, next thing you know we'll have to consult The Day After Tomorrow.
I think that was more effective than a whole string of rolly-eyes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Day By Day cartoon was a perfect example of what not to drag the discussion down to!
Sadly, the intent of the cartoon is to be a one-sided bash on liberals. If you read any criticism of the default conservative position into the cartoon, it's your own bias coming out. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Star Trek to tell us anything solid about quantum mechanics, despite its "Heisenberg compensators" and "quantum torpedoes," we can't rely on fiction to tell us what's nonfictional.
Hey, Star Trek has come a long way since quantum torpedoes. They're well into transphasic torpedoes now.
Get with the times Will.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i didnt say that he's done more research, im just saying he did enough to make me question the severity (that a word?) of global warming. i feel it might exist but i havent ever looked too far into it.
just really saying i like the book.
*quietly walks out of the thread*
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Transphasic? That wasn't (ack) Enterprise, was it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. We see them in Voyager. One transphasic torpedo can take out a Borg cube. They're literally weapons from the future, and like all things in Voyager, they suck.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well to be fair I remember them firing multiple torpedoes to take out the cube. And VOY had its moments.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: like all things in Voyager, they suck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:The Day By Day cartoon was a perfect example of what not to drag the discussion down to!
Sadly, the intent of the cartoon is to be a one-sided bash on liberals. If you read any criticism of the default conservative position into the cartoon, it's your own bias coming out.
Ah but of course. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Here, here.
I just want to add that I do believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence that global warming is taking place.
I also think that if we wait till we can prove one way or the other that we are actually causing it, it will be too late to reverse it.
The time to do something about it is now.
I think that there are plenty of reasons other than global warming to begin taking significant steps that have been identified as part of a useful response to global warming. Renewable energy has both national security benefits and is a long-term necessity. In the shorter term, nonrenewable sources such as fission (assuming fissible material isn't renewable) and possibly fusion (I have no idea if hydrogen isotopes used to fuel fusion are renewable) have national security benefits and increase the amount of time before we must be getting all or most energy from renewable sources. Better transmission lines and electrical storage is needed if we ever hope to have an electric transportation infrastructure or to make use of renewable generation efficiently and predictably.
Reduced energy use can have immediate benefits with few side effects if achieved through attrition-based replacement of energy-using devices with more efficient models. It also helps to increase the time we have to make the changeover.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief.
The effect something will have on you does affect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
I agree that this often happens; I do not agree that it is rational. Truth is truth, it doesn't change for being inconvenient. I would also note that, even if you do apply this standard to global warming, it's being applied inconsistently. Presumably, if you're only a little bit convinced, you should take only a little bit of action; but those who are a little bit doubtful use that as a reason to take zero action. Finally, the whole argument is a bit ironic coming from someone who believes in fairy tales on the authority of old books.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree that this often happens; I do not agree that it is rational. Truth is truth, it doesn't change for being inconvenient.
But the level of proof needed before taking a specific action is a very, very different thing than truth. We don't wait to take action for something to be proven "true."
quote:Finally, the whole argument is a bit ironic coming from someone who believes in fairy tales on the authority of old books.
Just goes to show I should read the whole post before deciding if someone is worth an attempt to have a civil discussion with or should just be blown off as the rude, uncivil, and ignorant hack that they are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story. a very good book, if anyone has the time to give it a read.
im still undecided on this whole global warming issue. instincts tell me to believe it, but im not sure. plus what Mr Crichton said about believing psuedo-sciences at the end of State of Fear has kept me from believing to ofirmly in one side or the other just yet.
Everything KoM is colored by his obsession with his favorite subject. I had not decided his motivations before I discovered I don't actually care.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists?
And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
I honestly felt Crichton was merely suggesting that we not buy into pseudoscience, as human beings have quite frequently in the past.
This has been linked before on hatrack, and thats where I first read it, but I thought it made a very good point on human management of the environment,
Crichton also gave another excellent lecture on how pseudo science, "religion" as he calls it, has lead us from believing in extra terrestrial life to global warming.
His style is easy to read and to me he sounds very rational. I felt both documents are worth reading if only to cause people to slow down and not pick up the global warming baton and run with it so to speak.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to double post but,
quote: ts a sad state of affairs when people trust the opinion of Science Fiction novelist over reports by the National Academy of Science, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nobel Laureates, American Geophysical Union, , Over 1500 top scientists from around the world, , The American Chemical Society, , The American Meteorological Society and every other reputable scientific body on the planet that isn't being fund by an oil company.
Read the 2nd speech I linked, you will find that is usually the FIRST accusation the scientific community throws at skeptics who may or may not turn out to be right.
"He is not a REAL scientist!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quite so, and this makes it untrue in what way? After all, astrologists do precisely the same thing - "Oh, the scientific establishment calls us quacks, but then they always do. What do they know?"
Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
You do not know what you are talking about. You know nothing of how I scrutinize my own religion.
I seriously doubt that were you speaking to Isaac Newton you would say, "So Isaac, you expect me to listen to your theories of motion and your statements on physics when you believe in the Bible? In fact more of your writings and attention are placed in the religious realms then scientific, I don't consider you to be a *real* scientist."
Its incredulous to me that you expect me to be so completely doubtful of every religion (a HUGE COMPLEX system) and then suggest that I gobble down global warming wholesale and start pushing it on other people as "truth."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, We've been though this. Isaac Newton was not a real scientist by the modern definition of the term. He did not follow what we currently recognize as scientific epistemology. He would be more accurately described, in the aspects that you are talking about, as a natural philosopher.
You may not understand the differences in conotation between these terms, but let me assure that they are very important.
---
Also, how long are people going to waste their time rebutting KoM's anti-religious posts? What's the point?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists?
And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
I honestly felt Crichton was merely suggesting that we not buy into pseudoscience, as human beings have quite frequently in the past.
This has been linked before on hatrack, and thats where I first read it, but I thought it made a very good point on human management of the environment,
Crichton also gave another excellent lecture on how pseudo science, "religion" as he calls it, has lead us from believing in extra terrestrial life to global warming.
His style is easy to read and to me he sounds very rational. I felt both documents are worth reading if only to cause people to slow down and not pick up the global warming baton and run with it so to speak.
As far as rising sea levels go, the thing to worry about is ice sheets currently residing on land, like those in Greenland and Antarctica. Evidence shows they are melting at an alarming rate, much faster than what we had anticipated before. That's a fact.
Some glaciers might be thickening, but many, many more are breaking away, collapsing and melting. Those are the ones that might screw up the flow of warm water in the world's oceans.
It's happening as we speak, it's serious.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: I am not sure what your point is, so what if Newton was not a *real* scientist as the term exists today. When it came to physics he knew what he was talking about to some extent, look at his works without using the fact he believes in God as a reason to doubt his observations and hypothesis.
Lyrhawn: I understand that ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate, what I object to is the fact that global warming is presented so one sidedly. Only the evidence that supports it is promoted and THEN people say, "There is so much evidence for it, and not counter evidence, how can we doubt it?" There IS evidence that requires us to question some aspects of global warming, but it is often down played and proponents are called "quacks" by the scientific community.
While there are idiots who claim to be scientists, we should not just accept that, "scientists have shrugged off the weaknesses of humanity and are completely objective in their observation of the universe."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
You do not know what you are talking about. You know nothing of how I scrutinize my own religion.
I certainly do, having had this discussion with you before. But if you've been holding back on me, by all means do tell me now, what is the difference?
quote:I seriously doubt that were you speaking to Isaac Newton you would say, "So Isaac, you expect me to listen to your theories of motion and your statements on physics when you believe in the Bible? In fact more of your writings and attention are placed in the religious realms then scientific, I don't consider you to be a *real* scientist."
As a matter of fact, I would. The guy believed in alchemy. But I've done the experiments myself, and I understand the math; which is why I believe Newtonian physics works. Newton himself has nothing to do with it.
quote:Its incredulous to me that you expect me to be so completely doubtful of every religion (a HUGE COMPLEX system) and then suggest that I gobble down global warming wholesale and start pushing it on other people as "truth."
I don't see where being a huge, complex system is an argument in favour of believing in something. If anything it should be an argument against. Global warming, on the other hand, has a mechanism any child can understand, and measurements done over several decades supporting it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, My point was that you were repeating an earlier mistake by claiming that Isaac Newton was a scientist. One of the major problems in conversations like these is that people don't understand what it actually means for someone to be a scientist or for something to be scientific. Often, the anti-scientist crowd uses their ignorance of these things as an attack on "science", as you did the last time you brought up Newton in this context.
I think it is important to note when people include innacurate information as a side issue in their posts, as Geoff did with the "vast majority of physicists pursue string theory" and you did with Newton here. Should I not correct inaccuracies like this?
[ January 29, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BB-
I think the discussion, as it pertains to what we as humanity do in response, is a moot point anyway. As I've said before in this thread, there are a half dozen beneficial reasons to combat the common believed human contributive causes that have nothing to do with global climate change itself.
Dag mentioned one thing I forgot, which was upgrading the infrastructure for energy transfer across the nation, but that's something we need to do anyway, if the blackout in the northeast in 2003 (I think?) is any indication (which it is).
This is a fun debate we can argue about until we're all blue in the fact, and it really doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong (well that might be a little strong), because we're already making the first steps, and we should be accelerating the process so we can make some money and live healthier lives, to say nothing of the national defense benefits, etc. etc.
People who keep trying to say "Ah ha!" whenever contradictory evidence comes up against GCC I think don't understand the benefits of changing the way we live our lives, and I don't mean the intrinsic "feel good about ourselves for saving the earth" type stuff. I mean tangible, money in your hands benefits.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sure it'll be expensive, but the technology is there. With the right incentives it can be done.
As for nuclear power, it is ultimately a non-renewable energy source, so if we rely too much on it, it will put our descendants into a situation similar to ours currently.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I can agree with you there, I am all in favor of getting off the carbon energy infrastructure and moving on to cleaner, better, more efficient energy sources.
KOM: Very well I accept your interpretation of how I scrutinize my own religion based on our conversations to be illformed, and unfortunate, and though it means little to you, your belittling attitude does more a disservice for your atheistic message.
quote:As a matter of fact, I would. The guy believed in alchemy. But I've done the experiments myself, and I understand the math; which is why I believe Newtonian physics works. Newton himself has nothing to do with it.
But you still had to do the math, which means you looked passed your disagreements and tested his theories on their own merits. Even if the guy was a foolish theistic believer in alchemy.
Were I to flip this, since you are a foolish atheist I should disregard anything you have to say about physics, despite your PHD as any belief you might have that I perceive as incorrect, and foolishly so dictates I ignore anything else you might present as true.
Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
edit: Mr. S, point taken on discussing things while operating on flawed fundamentals. But my point still stands that Newton, though he might not be considered a "real scientist" still got it right when it came to physics.
Today, we should be able to be skeptical without being called "fools" when it comes to any theory science presents to us. Science is just as capable of "scaring us with false demons" as any religion, and in the past it HAS been known to let politics and basic human behavior corrupt its mission of truth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
Popular opinion I'll give you, but then again nobody has suggested that as evidence. Consensus science is only invoked when the critics, in desperation, go "Look! I found a scientist who disagrees with you! He's not funded by the oil industry in any way, shape, or form, disregarding some minor stock options that aren't at all important!" And as for controversial figures, well, I defy you to find one from outside the scientific community who managed to be right despite opposing a consensus. But even if you do find such a man, there would be any number of counterexamples, starting with the TimeCube guy and going up from there. The outsider is not the way to bet; and you are betting a very considerable amount, here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
It is this kind of comment that makes Crichton so offensive to anyone involved in the actually scientific research.
Yes, in several places icebergs are thickening. This isn't a secret in the scientific community. Not at all. If you don't here about it, its not because scientists are covering it up its because you don't read the scientific literature. If you think that this is a serious criticism of Global Climate Change research, its evidence that you do not understand the underlying theory.
There are always parts of the sea ice that are getting thinner and parts that are getting thicker. The point is that far more parts are getting thinner than are getting thicker so that the total amount of sea ice is decreasing at an alarming rate. In fact that rate has increased since Crichton did his research.
Yes, Crichton did a lot of research for his book. But even though Crichton is a birght guy and did a lot of research, he does not have the expertise of the least qualified member of the IPCC.
If you would like to see experts response to Crichton's book, here are several good links.
The bottom line is the like most skeptics of Global Climate Change science, Crichton is cherry picking the data to give an inaccurate impression of the state of Global Climate research. He pulls out pieces of information that appear to raise significant doubt about the theory but fails to mention that these same pieces of information have been thoroughly discussed in the same scientific literature he dismisses. This same pieces of information are consistent with the picture supported by virtually every expert in the field.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
Popular opinion I'll give you, but then again nobody has suggested that as evidence. Consensus science is only invoked when the critics, in desperation, go "Look! I found a scientist who disagrees with you! He's not funded by the oil industry in any way, shape, or form, disregarding some minor stock options that aren't at all important!" And as for controversial figures, well, I defy you to find one from outside the scientific community who managed to be right despite opposing a consensus. But even if you do find such a man, there would be any number of counterexamples, starting with the TimeCube guy and going up from there. The outsider is not the way to bet; and you are betting a very considerable amount, here.
I would agree the "outsider" concept is indeed not a rule, but there are numerous examples of scientists being alienated by the scientific community because their theories were far removed from the popular opinion. Crichton's 2nd speech I linked is all about that.
So yes, I agree we shouldn't assume the majority of scientists are wrong, thats even more silly then blindly believing them.
But the scientific community does not live in the Star Trek universe yet, they live in reality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would agree the "outsider" concept is indeed not a rule, but there are numerous examples of scientists being alienated by the scientific community because their theories were far removed from the popular opinion. Crichton's 2nd speech I linked is all about that.
Exactly my point, though you didn't seem to notice. There are numerous examples of this happening to scientists. Crichton is no such thing. When he comes up with original data, carefully peer-reviewed and with a model supporting it, which shows no human effect on climate change, then he'll be listened to. Until then, not. That's how science works, and how it should work, and the only reason it's being even partially disrupted in the forum of public discussion (not in the forum of scientific discussion, you should note) is because people have a money interest in convincing the public there's no global warming.
quote:But you still had to do the math, which means you looked passed your disagreements and tested his theories on their own merits.
Yes. With Newton, that's possible. With Einstein, it's not possible. At some point you're going to have to take the word of real scientists; you can't check every experiment for yourself. And the reason you take the word of scientists and not fiction writers is that one group has a consistent record of success over the past three hundred years, and the other doesn't.
And no, reading a book and thinking about the arguments is not "testing the theory on its merits". You need to not only understand the math, but be able to run the models, operate the measuring equipment, understand the weaknesses of the equipment and grad students so you understand what data should be trusted and what needs to be re-run, understand statistical significance and the systematic error in your noise filters... In short, you need to be a full-time working scientist in the field. No fiction writers, much less fiction reader, need apply. Come back when you're qualified; then we'll listen to your doubts. At the moment, you have the right to shut up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: I read all three of your links and this is how I felt about them.
First: I was totally unsatisfied with their responses to Crichton's words. Their arguments lacking in substance, and served only to reinforce what Crichton says all along, in effect, "Be careful in how you interpret a data set, don't jump to conclusions."
quote: In general, climate trends are often difficult to detect in data from individual stations because each station is subject to local effects. These variations can be reduced by averaging together the data from many stations, which is why climate scientists rely on such averages in detecting the first signs of the effect of CO2 increases on temperature. So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.
Well OK, if you can't really rely on the data to show that its not warming, then you can't rely on it show its warming.
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
quote: The precise mechanism responsible for these massive events is a matter of lively inquiry in the scientific literature, but the fact that they are all happening now that human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a level not seen over the past 400,000 years, after having survived millennia, is powerful circumstantial evidence that should not be lightly dismissed.
Well OK, but its still circumstantial isn't it? Hardly cause enough to convict and take action. The fact that its the subject of "lively debate" makes me less inclined to swallow it without thinking twice.
quote: By way of analogy, the occurrence of large earthquakes is also very difficult to predict. Just because we can’t predict when the next big earthquake in California will occur, should we stop building earthquake-resistant buildings?
Holy Crap do they really expect that analogy to fly? That comparison only works if the question of earthquakes was still a matter of discussion, which they are not. Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is precisely what we are arguing about!
Second:
quote:Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.
He clearly has not read the book, I am not bothering with anything else he might say, suffice to say I read it and didn't agree.
Third: The writer getting upset over the incident is justified, but Crichton got the data from another source and it was THAT source that he alleges modified his data. The fact remains his scenario A data was still 300% off the mark.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: served only to reinforce what Crichton says all along, in effect, "Be careful in how you interpret a data set, don't jump to conclusions."
That's kind of exactly what he did numerous times, especially with his scientific notes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: No fiction writers, much less fiction reader, need apply. Come back when you're qualified; then we'll listen to your doubts. At the moment, you have the right to shut up.
Oh ho ho...thanks for those rights KOM. Clearly YOU have not registered that Crichton did NOT say global warming is not happening, he is honest enough to say from what he has seen and read it does. His only point is that Global Warming is being paraded before society in much the same way global cooling and eugenics were. But very well, now I'll invite you to shut up when it comes to religious discussion as you have yet to become a bishop and so are not qualified enough to know what you are talking about.
If you wish to discuss Buddhism you must meditate several hours daily, as well as believe in Karma.
Taoism you need to have idols setup, and believe all things are predetermined.
You can discuss Islam when you have read the Koran, totally abstained from alcohol, pray 5 times a day, and made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
And thank you so much for belittling my intelligence rather then trying to point out errors in my thinking. I know science does not discuss the principle of "empathy" or even "civility" but you would benefit from both, even if they can't be quantified, measured, or otherwise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Blackblade, This is why I hate arguing science with people with insufficient background but I will do my best to explain why your arguments are flawed.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: In general, climate trends are often difficult to detect in data from individual stations because each station is subject to local effects. These variations can be reduced by averaging together the data from many stations, which is why climate scientists rely on such averages in detecting the first signs of the effect of CO2 increases on temperature. So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.
Well OK, if you can't really rely on the data to show that its not warming, then you can't rely on it show its warming.
The point isn't that you can't rely on the data to show that it is not warming. The point is that you can't rely on data at any individual location to tell you what is going on globally. CO2 in the atmosphere affects the entire planet but it doesn't affect every place equally. In fact, all of the climate change models show that global warming will cause some places on the planet to get colder while others get hotter. So the fact that some places are getting colder or show no change at all is irrelevant. The question is what is happening to the global average. In order to understand what's happening to the global average you have to look at the average over the entire planet.
When you look at the global average data from either ground based measurements or satellite based measurements you find that the global average is increasing.
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
Let give you a relevant analogy. Suppose you get a notice from your bank saying you have over drawn you account. You look at the checks you've written for groceries and they are lower than what you spent last month when you didn't over draw your account. Does this mean the bank is in error? Of course not. In order to determine if the bank is in error you need to look at the sum total of all the deposits and withdrawals from your account and not just the grocery bills. What the scientists are saying here is that it doesn't matter that the temperature decreased in several regions of the globe, if we look at all the regions we see that the average is increasing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit, I understood the point you are making in the first paragraph of your above post. I know they are arguing the "average" is what is increasing, and it seems the average indicates warmth that is unusal and beyond natural. But again the picture I was painted in school and in newspapers was CO2 CO2!!! There was no mention of other factors. Obviously now that I am in college and individually decided to pursue the subject of my own accord I see there is more to it. What I have seen makes me skeptical, but even I agree that I am inclined to believe that CO2 a greenhouse gas is causing our mean temperatures to increase. All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
I only wonder if the blisteringly universal consensus of the entire world's supply of qualified climatologists may be able to help clear the matter up for you? They actually seem to think that CO2 is pretty important and I'm not sure that some errant skepticism by a fiction writer is enough to unseat that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the reason it's so ballyhooed is that it's the largest single man made gas emitted. We can't control what volcanoes do, we CAN control what gases we emit into the atmosphere.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Next point
Blackblade posted
quote:
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
CO2 is paraded about as if its overpowering for several reasons. The most obvious is that it is the primary factor which human activity is changing. If human activity were altering the earths orbit, I'm sur you would here plenty about that as well but right now CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary factor that is changing due to human activity.
Because CO2 and other greenhouse gases are changing very rapidly (on a time scale relevant to individual human lives) they are very different from other forces which influence climate that change over periods of thousands of years.
Data from ice cores indicates that the global climate has changed abruptly half a dozen times over the past 400,000 but abruptly in this context mean over a period of 5 - 10 thousand years. The changes we are observing now due to human greenhouse gas emission are occurring over a time from of 50 years. Clearly if the climate were to change gradually over 5000 years, people and other living things would have much more ability to adapt than if those changes occur in only a few decades.
Let me break down for you what I see as the relevant questions.
1. Is it possible for changes in CO2 (and other human produced greenhouse gases) to alter global climate in the absense of any other effect? The answer to this question is a simple yes and is based are extremely well established scientific prinicples.
2. Are human activities changing the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enough to alone result in a significant changes in the global average temperature? The answer to this question has been addressed by both measurement and theory and is an unqualified yes.
3. Are the current changes we are observing in the global climate the result of greenhouse emissions or the result of other phenomena? Mounting evidence indicates that we are observing global climate change which can not be explained without including CO2 and other greenhouse emissions. For example, volcanoes can result in climate change but the volcanic activity we've observed does not account for the climate change we have observed. Change in solar activity can cause climate change but we haven't observed changes in solar activity that are sufficient to observe the changes we are seeing the global mean temperature.
4. Will other factors that influence climate change such as ocean currents, cloud cover, vegetation etc. react in a way that will counter or reinforce the effect of increased greenhouse emissions? The answer to this question is still controversial. If it weren't for this, the Climate Change science would be a no brainer and any undergraduate science student could calculate how much the earth would warm and how fast. This is the crux of all the models and why the science is so complicated. Right now the scientific consensus is that these factors will not counter the influence of greenhouse emissions. In fact, there is growing evidence suggesting that such factors will reinforce the greenhouse effect causing additional warming.
Whether or not changes in the solar irradiance have caused climate change in the past and will cause them in the future is an interested scientific question that has no immediate social or political relevance because we don't have the ability today to change the solar irradiance.
Whether or not CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels can and will change the climate is not just an interesting academic question, it is one which has immediate social and political relevance.
[ January 29, 2007, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] The precise mechanism responsible for these massive events is a matter of lively inquiry in the scientific literature, but the fact that they are all happening now that human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a level not seen over the past 400,000 years, after having survived millennia, is powerful circumstantial evidence that should not be lightly dismissed.
Well OK, but its still circumstantial isn't it? Hardly cause enough to convict and take action. The fact that its the subject of "lively debate" makes me less inclined to swallow it without thinking twice.
The lively debate is about the precise mechanisms responsible for events like a massive hurricane or the break up of an ice sheet not about the basic theory of greenhouse warming.
What we have is not solely circumstantial evidence. We have a simple well established scientific premise. That premise is that adding chemicals to our atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation will change the radiant heat balance of the planet. No One with any credibility questions that premise. We have 50 years of data showing that burning fossil fuels and other human activities are significantly changing the concentration of infrared absorbing chemicals in our atmosphere. We have many elaborate scientific models in an attempt to understand exactly how our planets oceans, atmosphere and biosphere will react to those models. We have measurements showing that the average surface temperature of the earth is increasing as is predicted in those models. We have catostrophic events like the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and record strength hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones all of which are consistent with the theory.
What we have no other scientific theory which can explain what's going on.
This is more that circumstantial evidence.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I only wonder if the blisteringly universal consensus of the entire world's supply of qualified climatologists may be able to help clear the matter up for you? They actually seem to think that CO2 is pretty important and I'm not sure that some errant skepticism by a fiction writer is enough to unseat that?
Seriously, Samp. Look at what Rabbit is doing. It's informative, relevant to the question, and not annoying. Please please please stop with the appeal-to-authority fallacy. People are trying to learn something here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rabbit, I understood the point you are making in the first paragraph of your above post. I know they are arguing the "average" is what is increasing, and it seems the average indicates warmth that is unusal and beyond natural.
BlackBlade, I was simply answering the question you posed. You asked why if the data couldn't be used to support cooling it could be used to support warming. If you understood it before I posted, then why did you ask the question in the first place.
quote:But again the picture I was painted in school and in newspapers was CO2 CO2!!! There was no mention of other factors. Obviously now that I am in college and individually decided to pursue the subject of my own accord I see there is more to it. What I have seen makes me skeptical, but even I agree that I am inclined to believe that CO2 a greenhouse gas is causing our mean temperatures to increase. All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
I'm sorry I broke up your points into several pieces. It seemed if I did not my post would end up being so long no one would read it. I addressed you CO2 question in my last point.
Let me reiterate one key point that is made in the sites I linked you to. This is not a novel criticism of the greenhouse gas theory. Scientist know that there are a variety of additional factors which influence climate. The question has been asked and explored in hundreds of scientific papers. Researchers have used the best scientifically available understanding of the system to determine whether those other factors could be responsible for the changes in Global Climate we are observing today. The conclusion of those studies is uniformly that greenhouse gases are the only thing we know of that can explain whats going on.
So for example, It has been suggested that the increases in the earth surface temperature since the 1970s could have been caused by changes in solar activity. Several teams have taken all the data that is available on solar activity and put it into the best models available and they have all found that the observed changes in solar activity can't explain the observed changes in the surface temperature of the earth. The same is true for every other factor. In fact, if you plug all those other factors into the best models what you find is that combined they cannot explain the surface warming unless you include the changes in greenhouse gases.
Is that certainty? No. But it is compelling.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
(This is a preemptive strike against the sites grammar Nazi's. If you aren't one of them, please skip it).
I've just read through my last several posts and recognize that they are rife with typing errors. This is a forum not a publication so I generally don't take the time to proof read what I post. It takes more than enough of my time to write this stuff as it is. If you are unwilling to look past my typing errors to the content of what I've posted, I'm not interested in hearing about it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rabbit, it is such a pleasure to follow your thinking. I know it takes a lot of energy to do this again, but each time the line of reasoning continues to become more clear to me.
Thanks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you wish to discuss Buddhism you must meditate several hours daily, as well as believe in Karma.
You will note that my list of qualifications did not include anything of the form "believe in X". I would point out, though, that no religion is actually at all difficult to understand; there are no mathematics, no abstruse special cases. Any man is as qualified as a bishop to discuss the truth of religion; which is, in fact, precisely the hallmark of things that are made up. You might have a point touching discussion of the effects of living a certain moral code; you will note that I have never discussed this, except to note that mine makes me as happy as yours makes you, and hurts fewer people at that.
Incidentally, I said no word about your intelligence, only about your education. There's a difference. I'm sorry you did not see fit to educate yourself in science, but it's not too late. Get thee to grad school, go.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, I am a deeply religious individual and a scientist. I find your tirades against religion to be utterly counterproductive when discussing the validity of any scientific topic. There is no reason to insist that science in general or Global Climate Science in particular are incompatible with a devout spiritual life. If you do so, you are more likely to pursuade the devoutly spiritual to ignore science than to abandon their spirituality.
The Global Climate crisis is real and responding to it is a moral imperative which will affect all our lives whether we accept Jesus as our Savior our not. Since it isn't necessary to be an athiest to believe in Climate Change, please leave the religion bashing for somewhere else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not think it is "religion bashing" to point out that people are applying a different standard of proof to global warming and to their theistic beliefs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No KOM, its little quips like "precisely the hallmark of things that are made up", which constitute religion bashing.
Please KOM, I'm making a serious effort here to explain to skeptics why the arguments made by people like Crichton against Global Climate Change science are invalid. The insults you keep repeating aren't helping their hurting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]
quote: By way of analogy, the occurrence of large earthquakes is also very difficult to predict. Just because we can’t predict when the next big earthquake in California will occur, should we stop building earthquake-resistant buildings?
Holy Crap do they really expect that analogy to fly? That comparison only works if the question of earthquakes was still a matter of discussion, which they are not. Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is precisely what we are arguing about!
Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is not the central argument. In fact it is only a small part of the picture.
If the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise, this will shift the radiative balance of the planet which will result in a rise in global mean temperatures. That is not in question. NO ONE who understands the basics of radiative energy exchange doubts that. It is as certain as whether or not there will be another earthquake along the San Andreas fault.
There may still be a question about whether our not the CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere has already caused a measurabe change in the climate. There may still be question about how much the CO2 concentration will have to increase before it causes significant climate change. There may still be question about how soon that climate change will occurr and how severe it will be. But there is no doubt in any scientists mind that if we keep increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later it will cause global warming.
How different is that from earthquake codes? The best scientific evidence is that there will be a significant earthquake in Salt Lake City sometime in the next century or so. There is no certainty about how soon it will happen or how severe a quake will be when it comes, but the state is rebuilding the capital and the LDS church is renovating the Tabernacle to meet earthquake code.
Its not the best analogy, but its not nearly so bad as you paint it to be. I think that the authors point was that we do things all the time because the best evidence suggests a significant risk. We are willing to buy insurance on your home even though there is not certainty that we will ever have a fire or be robbed.
We wear our seat belts even though there is not certainty that we will ever be in an accident. We go in for cancer screening even if there though there is no certainty that we will ever get cancer and no guarantee that they will be able to cure the cancer even if they catch it in screening. We do this things not because they are "certain" to be of benefit, but because we believe that the risk associated with not doing them is worth the cost.
As someone who is very familiar with the science, I think that the probability of catastrophe if we do not respond to the warnings of Global Climate scientists is more than high enough for us to act now even though it isn't certain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm reading with interest, Rabbit. The exact (or, well, sometimes theoretical-but-highly-likely) sciences involved in global warming have never really interested me all that much, since I support the various measures designed to respond to global warming for a bunch of other reasons and because I think it's a highly-likely set of related theories and data samples, so I'm not reading it all in one go-not really my thing, to make a long explanation short.
But to get back to the point of this post, thanks for taking the time to post these explanations. It's appreciated
-------------------
And here's another example of why I do not believe you when you say you're usually trying to change people's minds, King of Men. You're basically in agreement with Rabbit here concerning global warming. You certainly understand the sciences involved a great deal better than I do, and yet your approach is sharply different from hers.
Why is that, I wonder?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I cant write very effectively as I am using my wii to type this. I just wanted to say Rabbit that I greatly appreciate all that you are writing out. I need to reread it a bit as it's quite tedious to try and read the forums on my tv. But again, thank you very much!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Seriously, Samp. Look at what Rabbit is doing. It's informative, relevant to the question, and not annoying. Please please please stop with the appeal-to-authority fallacy. People are trying to learn something here.
Do you know what an appeal-to-authority fallacy is?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: And here's another example of why I do not believe you when you say you're usually trying to change people's minds, King of Men. You're basically in agreement with Rabbit here concerning global warming. You certainly understand the sciences involved a great deal better than I do, and yet your approach is sharply different from hers.
Why is that, I wonder?
Not just that, but why we're more likely to listen to Rabbit than to KoM, even when they're saying the same thing. Personally, I find KoM's rants so... useless. Pointless. Idiotic, really.
Rabbit, thank you for your explanations and all the effort you've put into this thread. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think someone should point out that this (edit: If I recall correctly) is at least the third time Rabbit has done this at Hatrack.
And yet, in a couple of months, someone else will post a thread with a silly, empty, simpistic attack on it like Lisa did here and people will expect her to do it again. And will claim, despite her posts here, readily available detailed explanations of the topic online, and a wide-release documentary that you can rent for maybe $3, that no one ever tries to explain this to them.
[ January 30, 2007, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe we should add this to JT's resource thread, so a quick link next time will save Rabbit all the trouble she keeps going through.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I also want to thank you, Rabbit. I generally tend to lurk here, with high bursts of posting in very focused areas. I miss 85-90% of the threads created, and I seem to have missed those times you have explained these things before.
I have been reading this with interest, though, and appreciate you taking the time to break things down.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
See, I still don't buy it. I still think it's a scam because you (GCC advocates in general) are demanding we change our way of life when, even if you're right, we don't have to.
Nuclear power can generate all the power we need, but few of you (GCC advocates) are calling for it. Concern over waste is brought up but we have a mile deep hole with no aquifer near by in Nevada to bury it in.
Nuclear power plants won't melt down to China. That's pure Hollywood. There is no reason not to be building nuclear plants all over the country. If GCC were the threat that you (GCC advocates) claim it is, you'd be clamoring for nuclear plants to save the planet.
Combine nuclear plants with the new EEStor http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/eestor_capacito_1.php electric cars and suddenly, no more CO2 emissions from power generation OR transportation. This is technology that's just around the corner. But I hear nothing of this from anywhere but SlashDot and that's because it's geeky.
This is technology that is HERE and operational. It's expensive on a per-barrel basis but that's because they have to buy their turkey guts. Start replacing sewer plants and landfills and see how cheap per-barrel it gets.
If GCC were real and not just a way to make us change our lives, these would be headlines. These technologies get me wound up and excited and I'm not even an environmentalist. They're just too cool and efficient and we're going to need them if we ever go to the stars.
I am not a Luddite. I love science and I love technology. But when someone starts demanding money or change from me I have to wonder what's up. If you (GCC advocates) are really worried, sell us hope, sell us these cool new inventions, and stop selling us fear and sacrifice. (And public transportation for that matter. That's nothing but a rat hole of waste. At least here in spread-out San Jose.)
Now I know I had more to say, but I've been interrupted five times while typing this so excuse me if this post is disjointed.
Pix
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Meh, melodramatic Pix.
Renewable energies, fuel efficient cars and light bulbs, we aren't talking about a basic foundational change in the way you live your life, it's all just that fancy technology you're asking for. But I'm curious: What are the changes you're going to have to make to your way of life?
Everything costs money. Your Thermodepolymerization plants cost money, not to mention it's still untested on a large scale, unlike many renewables, but either way it's all still a work in progress, and that's one of those things you seem to be decrying, your nuclear plants cost money, coal and coal fired plants cost money, everything does. I don't get your point about "even if you're right" still not having to change your life. GCC will rearrange your life for you, it won't be an option.
Suggestions I've made previously in this thread are all for non-GCC reasons that have the added benefit of helping to eliminate the man made contributions to global climate change. It's an argument we are FINALLY starting to see on the national stage, and one I've supported for quite some time. You seem to be arguing both sides however.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Nuclear power plants won't melt down to China. That's pure Hollywood. There is no reason not to be building nuclear plants all over the country. If GCC were the threat that you (GCC advocates) claim it is, you'd be clamoring for nuclear plants to save the planet.
I admit I haven't done so in this thread, but I do actually think that we should build nuclear power plants, and the more the better.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Nitpick: it's "thermal depolymerization." [Added: I'm not to be pedantic, but I do have a chemical engineering degree and work experience in the petrochemical industry, including my current job. If I can't point things like that out, who can? ]
Also, I'm a proponent of nuclear energy as part of an overall strategy for reducing petrochemical usage. You forget, though, that uranium is an essentially finite resource just like petrochemicals; reducing energy usage would still be a good idea even if we could build enough nuclear plants to supply the world several times over.
The real question is how we solve the plastic problem. Nuclear power, fuel cells, solar power, wind power, and electric cars won't bring us any closer to resolving that one. It isn't clear from the reading I've done whether thermal depolymerization can make hydrocarbons light enough to re-polymerize for plastic manufacture.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: In CA our power costs an ungodly amount because we don't have enough power plants. PG&E runs TV ads constantly begging us not to use their product. If we could build enough nuclear plants, the price would fall because the supply would meet the demand and PG&E could stop buying out of state power at Grey Davis prices.
If you think I'm arguing both sides, you need to reread what I said. I do not believe global warming is happening. If it is, we should be building more nuke plants. If it isn't we should still be building more nuke plants (because of the terrorism angle, but let's not bring that up.) EEStor batteries are way cool and the electricity is cheaper than gas, regardless of GCC. Thermal Depolymerization will save money in the long run regardless of environmental concerns. If for nothing else, buying the land for land fills.
Stop trying to sell me fear and conservation. Sell me on coolness, efficiently and frugalness.
Twinky: Damn, I even Googled it to make sure I spelled it right. LOTS of people are calling it Thermodepolymerization. I'll have to correct myself in the future.
KoM and Twink: I'm glad you're pushing nuclear power. I'd like to hear more of that. Pushing for solutions that have been around for 60 years will get you farther than telling people how awful they are and how they need to conserve because they're killing the planet. Last I heard, we hadn't built a new power plant here in CA in 30 years. We need them desperately.
As far as Uranium being finite, ya, but it will last us until cold fusion. And if not, we still have all that coal in the ground.
Pix
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I doubt workable cold fusion will happen anytime soon. It would likely last us until hot fusion, though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I do not believe global warming is happening.
This is what I find strange about your position. You say you don't believe it's happening -- not because of any evidence, data, or scientific study, but because you don't like how non-scientists who believe in it ("GCC advocates in general") are asking you to change your lifestyle.
Don't you think you should decide what to believe based on the actual evidence being presented, rather than on the basis of your feelings about advocacy?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pixiest (and Twink and kom) -- concerning building more nuclear power plants -- that's two things we agree on today.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along. Be they global warming, herbal suppliments, thigh cream, cortislim or any other scam.
I've heard about global warming for decades now and all they sell is fear and not solutions. The fact that they use their own version of Pascal's Wager to sell it leaves me cold too.
I've told you how to sell me on fixing it even if I don't buy there's a problem. I handed you a manual right here on this page.
But it's not about fixing it. It's about keeping the research money flowing because if GCC gets fixed lots of people are out of a job.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pixiest (and Twink and kom) -- concerning building more nuclear power plants -- that's two things we agree on today.
Between last night's command that I go to grad school and KOM's statement today that we should build more nuclear power that too is two things we agree on.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually Pix, you just sound a bit self centered.
"I don't believe in you because then I'll be inconvienced."
Sadaam did not believe the US had the guts to invade, because if he did, he'd have to change his lifestyle.
The people in the time of Noah did not believe in what Noah was preaching, for if they did they'd have to change their life styles. And hey, it would really hurt the dagger and poison industries if all that murdering and such was truly frowned upon by God.
Bin Laden didn't believe that people would retaliate in such drastic fashion, or that God would let his Taliban lose, because such a belief would force him to change his lifestyle.
Since then, each has been proven wrong, and had changes of lifestyles forced on them that were much worse.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Godwin
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I've heard about global warming for decades now and all they sell is fear and not solutions.
Expecting climate scientists to solve engineering problems is unreasonable. That's hardly their job.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why nuclear power isn't suggested?
1) It is, and often, by many of the same scientists that work on climate change. Sure their voices get over whelmed by others, but it is out there.
2) Chernobyl still is a ghastly picture in peoples memory.
3) Having a nuclear reactor melt its way to China is not a fear. Having it blow up? Now there is a worry. Sure its not likely, or even close to probable, but its a worry that keep a lot of people saying, "Nuclear Power is great, anywhere else but here."
4) You brush away nuclear waste disposal as if it were a simple thing. You've got a big hole in the back yard--lets fill it up. However, one accident with a truck carrying the waste will contaminate a large area, so the concerned people are not just those near the big nuclear dump in AZ, but people along every route that leads to it.
5) Nuclear material will attract terrorists, extortionists, and black marketers from around the world. As we've watched them increase the terrorist security at the Bowling Hall of Fame (a natural target to bring down America), you can only imagine the fear that having a nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel, or nuclear waste near your house will cause.
6) You distrust the GCC people because it will change your lifestyle. Imagine the people who use, have invested in, or work for coal and petroleum based energy systems. Going Nuclear will be a direct attack on their jobs. They will do much to make sure it doesn't happen.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along.
I'm curious, though, how you determine between "snake oil salesman" and "legitimate scientist".
What gets by without needing to be "vetted", to use your phrasing?
What is "science" and what is "snake oil"? It seems you've "vetted" nuclear power, but outright reject climate change because you "don't have time to vet" it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pix -
quote:Lyr: In CA our power costs an ungodly amount because we don't have enough power plants. PG&E runs TV ads constantly begging us not to use their product. If we could build enough nuclear plants, the price would fall because the supply would meet the demand and PG&E could stop buying out of state power at Grey Davis prices.
If you think I'm arguing both sides, you need to reread what I said. I do not believe global warming is happening. If it is, we should be building more nuke plants. If it isn't we should still be building more nuke plants (because of the terrorism angle, but let's not bring that up.) EEStor batteries are way cool and the electricity is cheaper than gas, regardless of GCC. Thermal Depolymerization will save money in the long run regardless of environmental concerns. If for nothing else, buying the land for land fills.
Stop trying to sell me fear and conservation. Sell me on coolness, efficiently and frugalness.
You leave me convinced you don't really know what you are talking about if THAT is the argument you want to make. First of all, I'm not selling you fear and conservation, I'm selling you a booming economy, job creation and energy independence. I'm sorry it's not something you want to buy.
I have no problem with some nuclear plants to help us out of our rut until we can get onto full renewables, but there's little point in using them forever and creating a nuclear waste mess when there are totally clean sources of energy out there with an almost limitless source of energy.
I guess I don't understand your problem with renewable energy sources. You want to have cheap energy, put some solar panels on the roof of your house and eliminate your power bill entirely, or move to a building with solar heating, efficient design, and solar panels to reduce all your utilities. How is all that going to change the way you live, except to make it easier?
Carbon sequestration is an argument used to promote reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it also extends the life of (some) oil fields when pumped into fields in a near liquid state, and then capping them off keeps it there. It's also in use in algae farms, where it produces more fuel for the power plant, and commercially viable products, while creating artificial carbon sinks. You seem to think that anything Green is environmentally friendly but unfriendly to business and the public, and if that's true, you couldn't be more wrong. Think Green is in the color of money and the color of pro-environment.
Where is the fear and conservation argument in all that?
quote:But it's not about fixing it. It's about keeping the research money flowing because if GCC gets fixed lots of people are out of a job.
Actually, if we fix it through renewables pioneered in the US, then thousands, perhaps millions of people will get a job. As far as jobs go, we'll be in the plus by leaps and bounds. Climatologists won't go away because we "fix" global warming, they'll still have jobs.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
FC: If they're selling fear, they're probably snake oil salesmen. Legitimate science stands the test of time and doesn't have Doom constantly on the horizon. Legimitate science doesn't have 6 different news stories a day with Weekly-World-News-like headlines like "global climate change COULD cause massive death to the children." Yeah, anything COULD happen and it COULD be because GCC because GCC COULD be happening. zomg.
DR: No one lives near the giant hole of nuclear waste. We transport dangerous chemicals across country all the time. Some of them are at least as deadly as nuclear waste. But you're right. We don't build nuclear plants out of fear. But it's an irrational fear. Chernobyl was, what, 40 yr old soviet technology? We can build them safer now.
I distrust the GCC advocates because they sell fear. I think the energy companies would be just as happy to build nuclear plants as they are to drill for oil, except for the environmentalists standing in their way. I heard somewhere (but can't back it up with a link) that the most expensive part of building a nuclear plant is the lawyers. Might be a myth, but it makes sense to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Actually, if we fix it through renewables pioneered in the US, then thousands, perhaps millions of people will get a job. As far as jobs go, we'll be in the plus by leaps and bounds. Climatologists won't go away because we "fix" global warming, they'll still have jobs.
While this is true overall, they wouldn't be the same people. So the people who have jobs now, but wouldn't under the new scheme, have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along. Be they global warming, herbal suppliments, thigh cream, cortislim or any other scam.
Then you have no right to an opinion on the subject. Sit down and be quiet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM -
Pix seemed to be suggesting that the people who wanted to keep the status quo were the researchers who would be out of a job if we fixed GCC.
GCC advocates don't much seem to care about whether or not oil rig workers have jobs, but then, with the job market we have right now, no one in charge really cares who gets hired and fired, so long as the numbers still look good over all.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KOM wrote:
quote: Then you have no right to an opinion on the subject. Sit down and be quiet.
Fine. I'll leave you to your hand wringing. Ignore my solutions and you can go back to taking "I'm an expert, trust me" on faith.
I just wish they made a Global Warming filter like a porn filter so I'd never have to see it again.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be honest, I don't particularly care myself whether oil rig workers have jobs or not. Skilled manpower will always be in demand. As for the GCC researchers, that's ridiculous; it's funding agencies, not scientists, that decide who gets funding, and the agencies are run by bureaucrats. Climate research we'll always have with us, global warming or none.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Precisely my point, KoM.
Pix -
I'd like to request a response to my post if you can spare it. I'm curious to see what your argument is for someone who isn't "selling fear."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pix:
It's not the scientists who are making the "doom and gloom" statements. It's the media intepreting the scientific findings. If a scientist discovers that a baby's carseat is dangerous in side collision if not properly installed, the news is going to headline it as "Could your carseat kill your child?!? What is the company not telling you?!? Is *your* child in danger?!? Find out what you must do to protect your loved ones at 11!!!!"
It's sensationalism. Does it mean that the scientist's discovery that the carseat can be dangerous if not installed properly is wrong, just because it's been sensationalized?
You know, there are doomsday news stories about hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, heat waves, and all manner of things. Does that mean they're not dangerous, just because they're on the news a lot?
Your litmus test leaves a lot to be desired. Publicity and sensationalism do not invalidate science. I understand that they may make one skeptical - but skepticism does not automatically invalidate science, either.
It seems to me that as soon as your skeptic alarm goes off, then you label the cause of it a "snake oil salesman" without caring to spend any more time on it.
Skepticism should invite further inquiry to see if your skepticism is warranted - not simply denial out of convenience.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)