OSC says that while it is important to do the things they say -- reduce our dependence on oil, make things more energy efficient, etc -- it is NOT because we need to stop global warming. He says that rises in global temperatures are caused by regular flucuations in the heat of the sun (I think?), not by CO2 emitted by humans, and he says that there is plenty of data to back this up. And that global warming is natural, and nothing to worry about.
This is so confusing to me... I respect both Al Gore and OSC, but I don't know how to reconcile their extremely different opinions. I want to do my own research on this so I can form my OWN opinion, but I have no idea where to start -- anywhere you look, it's people preaching one side or the other (usually just the one side). I don't know where I would go to get unbiased information -- if that's even possible.
But of course, if the fear of global warming leads us to do better things for our country and the world, such as use cars less and not depend on foreign oil, then in the long run it doesn't matter whether global warming is a serious threat or not, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm beyond trying to convince people that global climate change is a threat or that humans are the source.
If Gore and OSC agree that we should go Green, but disagree about why, I can live with that, so long as we go Green. There are health, economic, defense and other reasons to do so, so let's not get hung up on the specifics, let's just do the one thing that will make ALL sides happy and promote a Green America.
Personally I believe more in Gore's point of view. All the facts I've seen seem to back him up. I think Inconvenient Truth was about warning and empowerment, not, as his detractors say, a scare film. I didn't leave the theater after I saw it feeling scared of what might happen to the world, I left feeling determined to convince as many people as possible that we need change now, and I left knowing how to best change my own actions in that regard as well.
There's plenty of reasons to solve the problem that have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Let's just get it done and argue about who was right and wrong later while we're enjoying the benefits.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
OSC and Gore don't both believe in the same course of action. OSC believes in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but he doesn't believe in taking any steps drastic enough to harm our economy.
As for the solar temperature fluctuation thing, that argument is addressed by Rabbit in the other thread--started by Puppy, I think?--with links you can follow.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Here are my suggestions for exploring the issue (which I followed as best I could):
Read biased sources, since that's what we have, but read both sides.
Delve into specifics. "Many scientists believe such-and-such" won't cut as much ice with me (hah) as "check out this graph."
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Adam, while I agree that it would be great for people who deny global warming to join in on supporting a green America/world (and you're right, there are very compelling economic reasons to go green; the most obvious being that America will become more self-dependant in terms of fuel and wouldn't need to come up with excuses for incursions into the Middle East - and hello Ford! People like fuel efficient cars!), they aren't likely to give more than half-hearted support for the movement.
If their reservation to grapple with a serious issue which will have global ramifications (correction: which has already had global ramifications) and requires global cooperation is based on faulty (often short-sighted - eg. looking at climate data in short time spans) evidence, I think it's important to correct their errors and occasionally, deceptions. As you know, closing down some coal plants just won't cut it; a sense of urgency is warranted and perhaps required.
That said I agree totally that An Inconvenient Truth is only a 'scare film' for people who intend to do nothing about global warming. The rest of us can pause to recognise the gravity of the problem, and get on with fixing it.
I love the 'what you can do to help' messages at the end of the movie.
"Write to Congress."
"If they don't listen, run for Congress."
Pure gold.
[ March 16, 2007, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:OSC says that while it is important to do the things they say -- reduce our dependence on oil, make things more energy efficient, etc -- it is NOT because we need to stop global warming. He says that rises in global temperatures are caused by regular flucuations in the heat of the sun (I think?), not by CO2 emitted by humans, and he says that there is plenty of data to back this up. And that global warming is natural, and nothing to worry about.
OSC is showing his ignorance on this one. His statements are not supportable based on the current scientific knowledge.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Here are my suggestions for exploring the issue (which I followed as best I could):
Read biased sources, since that's what we have, but read both sides.
Delve into specifics. "Many scientists believe such-and-such" won't cut as much ice with me (hah) as "check out this graph."
Will B, Here are my suggestions for exploring this issue. Use the search feature at this site. Read the detailed stuff I've written about the topic in the past. Go to the links I've posted and read the information provided.
Once you've done that, if you still aren't convinced that adding CO2 to the air is causing Global Warming, then go to your nearest university library, get into the ChemAbstract data base and do a search on every scientific article published on this subject during the past 10 years. You don't need to read the full articles but if you should at least read the abstracts and conclusions of most of them. You will probably need to take some graduate level atmospheric chemistry and meteorology courses to fully understand the papers. Once you've done that, then you will have the background necessary to criticize what the overwhelming majority of scientist in the field are saying.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: OSC and Gore don't both believe in the same course of action. OSC believes in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but he doesn't believe in taking any steps drastic enough to harm our economy.
If that's his position, then he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Green is gold when it comes to the economy.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Even if you accept that human actions are the cause of global warming, there are still other important questions to be addressed. One question regarding global warming, that I rarely (if ever) see raised is if our actions, at this point, can affect anything.
Frank Knight, a economist in the first half of the 20th century, made a very important distinction between risk and uncertainty. If a situation is risky, we know what the probabilities involved are regarding the future hazards. If a situation is uncertain, we can't calculate those probabilities with any sort of certainty, and sometimes we aren't even sure of what the costs are going to be should the worst occur. Generally, with known risk preventive strategies are called for, while, with uncertainty, reactionary measures (adjusting as the hazards occur) is the better plan.
I haven't yet been convinced that we're dealing with risk, rather than uncertainty, when it comes to global warming. I don't think the science is there yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If Gore and OSC agree that we should go Green
The proper nouning of "Green" includes way more than what needs to be done to move from a fossil-fuel-based economy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I apparently misunderstood OSC's position.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Jhai, the science is in. Most if not all evidence when viewed on a geological timescale points to global warming caused by humans. We know how the cause and effect mechanism works, and we're already beginning to see the effects. The exact nature of the worst case scenario is not known, sure; but how is reducing greenhouse gas emissions not a "reactionary measure"?
A more appropriate time to apply your reasoning would have been before we started burning all these fuels and wrecking havoc with the environment. We should have said to ourselves then, "we don't really know what effects this will have on our environment. Let's study the possible effects, or at least tread softly and adjust our policies as hazards are predicted or arise."
To be honest I don't understand the importance of drawing this distinction between risk and uncertainty, especially in our situation. The evidence points to there being a serious global problem, and we either act to repair it or we don't; we already know how to go about fixing it. Can we go green in time? I think it's possible, though political feasibility is another matter. But I don't think that "If it's true, we're probably screwed anyway" is a good reason to delay action.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: As for the solar temperature fluctuation thing, that argument is addressed by Rabbit in the other thread--started by Puppy, I think?--with links you can follow.
Well, I'm convinced now. Because we all know how infallible and un-ideological scientists are.
Did you read Card's article? If it didn't raise any doubts in you, then you really are hopeless. I mean, I can see taking evolutionary theory on faith. But for global warming being caused by humans, "the science is in"...
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
My sociology teacher also said that there have now been like 3500 peer-reviewed journal articles supporting anthropogenic global warming--and he's yet to find a single one that's against it. All of the dissent is in the popular media.
But that only matters if you actually know what a peer-reviewed journal is, and most of the country doesn't know or care.
Or you believe that all of the scientists are part of an leftist intellectual establishment with a strict dogma that must be followed by all who belong to the club--and that one guy who fudged some numbers automatically discredits the entire movement.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
From the report: "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility."
This is key. In fact, if you look at it from a statistical/historical perspective, it is highly likely that Anthopogenic Global Warming is just fad that will be discredited and forgotten, just like so many other theories before it. What makes this one so rock solid, when all the others were not, huh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Probably the overwhelming scientific consensus in all fields of climatology and related study.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
When the scientific consensus has been wrong, it has NOT been the media or non-scientific political movements that have been right.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Jhai, the science is in. Most if not all evidence when viewed on a geological timescale points to global warming caused by humans. We know how the cause and effect mechanism works, and we're already beginning to see the effects. The exact nature of the worst case scenario is not known, sure; but how is reducing greenhouse gas emissions not a "reactionary measure"?
...
To be honest I don't understand the importance of drawing this distinction between risk and uncertainty, especially in our situation. The evidence points to there being a serious global problem, and we either act to repair it or we don't; we already know how to go about fixing it. Can we go green in time? I think it's possible, though political feasibility is another matter. But I don't think that "If it's true, we're probably screwed anyway" is a good reason to delay action.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't know for certain how cutting back greenhouse emissions will affect the environment at this point. And there are certain costs - at least in the short-run - to doing so, both in terms of economic growth and utility. With technological progress (which is mainly fueled by economic growth), we may better understand this matter and have ways to cope with it in the future.
Very rough analogy: suppose you know that there is some sort of wild animal in a room of your house, and you're pretty certain it's destroying stuff and generally making a mess. Once you realize that the animal is in there, you could charge right in & try to kick it out. However, you may be faced with a small squirrel, a rabid raccoon, an angry mother bear, or some other sort of animal. That's where the uncertainty comes in. In this case, it might be better to wait a while, gather more information, develop/gather tools (like a dart gun), before you go charging in. This might be true despite the fact that, the longer you wait, the more damaged the room becomes. Sure, you might be able to get the animal out without waiting, but you could come out of the fight pretty banged up.
With the current level of technological process, I think a good strategy might be to hold off any major economic changes for a few years, and instead encourage the gathering of more information, as well as the development of new technologies. Granted, I'm not super informed on the science here, but I do think that this option should at least be considered.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't know for certain how cutting back greenhouse emissions will affect the environment at this point."
We don't know precisely, no. But we do know that it is our use of processes that cause greenhouse emissions that is fueling climate change, and that this climate change is likely to be disastrous. So, while it is possible that cutting back on greenhouse emissions could be bad, it is unlikely in the extreme that it would be worse then continuing along our current path.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: From the report: "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility."
This is key. In fact, if you look at it from a statistical/historical perspective, it is highly likely that Anthopogenic Global Warming is just fad that will be discredited and forgotten, just like so many other theories before it. What makes this one so rock solid, when all the others were not, huh?
Out of curiosity, could you make a list of MAJOR scientific consensuses that were widely held to be fact and ended up being false? I'm wondering if you're talking about Galileo and Copernicus or something more contemporary, or if you don't really have anything at all. The scientific community of today is nothing like it was a hundred years ago, so I'm greatly interested to hear what all these 20th century science fads were.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't know for certain how cutting back greenhouse emissions will affect the environment at this point."
We don't know precisely, no. But we do know that it is our use of processes that cause greenhouse emissions that is fueling climate change, and that this climate change is likely to be disastrous. So, while it is possible that cutting back on greenhouse emissions could be bad, it is unlikely in the extreme that it would be worse then continuing along our current path.
I agree that it seems doubtful that decreasing our emission of greenhouse gases will be actively bad for the environment. However, just like in my analogy above, charging into the fray comes at a cost - namely economic growth & utility. These do have to be taken into account when planning our policy actions. If it were really simple - i.e. non-costly - to switch over to a greener way of life, we would have already done so. (Remember costs include time spent and decreased utility from adopting new measures.) So if the benefits from decreasing greenhouse gas emission is minimal, then we'll have imposed a high cost on ourselves for little benefit.
I'm mostly worried about economic growth (although I think the utility concerns are also important, and often left out of the analysis). For instance, there's a lot of talk about how the U.S. is the worst polluter of all the countries. What gets talked about less is that, currently at least, the U.S. economy is the one fueling world economy. If the U.S. switches to a greener system, we're going to see at least short-term decreases in economic growth. And one or two percentage point decreases in growth is a big deal. Especially when you want to have a strong R & D community - which is what we want if we're going to come up with good longterm solutions to the global warming problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The idea that a Green economy will hurt the economy is a myth, or at the very least, it's just as bad of guesswork as saying we shouldn't go Green because it might hurt the Earth.
There's billions of dollars to be made in a Green economy, and billions to be saved. Right now we have a small piece of the pie. We could own the pie, but naysayers are ruining it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I've never been one to believe that the mass consumer base is either a)a particularly moral body, or b)a body that is particularly savvy at looking out for its own interests.
If the cheapest manufacturing is found in a country that viciously abuses its labor pool, it takes a heck of a lot to prevent that cheap product from being the top seller.
If there's the scent of money to be found in the stock market, or the gambling table, that base often seems to presume that history, for them at least, will not repeat itself.
Assuming that CO2 is not a major contributor to global warming (which is not a premise I find particularly strong), there are still numerous reasons that a reduction in petrochemical use could be good for the economy. Not least among these is the widespread belief that current petroleum resources are running out, new petroleum discoveries are becoming less and less common, and petroleum use by developed and developing countries is likely to skyrocket. If we end up bidding for scarce oil in a market controlled by countries like Venezuela and Iraq against a rising economic power like China, our own fortunes are likely to take a vicious turn.
Non-polluting transportation technologies could reduce medical costs to those suffering from respiratory conditions. Public transport could reduce motor vehicle injuries and deaths, and increase productivity by decreasing time spent in traffic. Funds lost by petrochemical-dependent industries could potentially be recouped by research groups, manufacturers of products developed as petroleum alternatives, and producers of non-petrochemical fuels such as ethanol.
On petroleum scarcity alone, there are strong reasons for finding solutions to petrochemical dependency now. To my mind, the question is whether we take the steps now to be an industrial leader in the future, or take editorials like Card's as excuses not to act with a sense of urgency.
[ March 19, 2007, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:On petroleum scarcity alone, there are strong reasons for finding solutions to petrochemical dependency now. To my mind, the question is whether we take the steps now to be an industrial leader in the future, or take editorials like Card's as excuses not to act with a sense of urgency.
Amen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It goes way beyond just fuels in cars, though that's a great enough reason right there. The first car company to come up with a car that can get 100 miles to the gallon that costs less than 20,000 dollars that still drives like a regular sedan is going to be the richest car company in the world. And if that company is an American company, that means huge dollars for our economy. That's probably why the next X Prize, which it's being talked about as a 25 million dollar reward this time, will be to match just those specifications. Private industry isn't waiting for the government to get on board, and they are sick of the naysaying from the White House. I want my tax dollars to go towards securing an independent wealthy future for the country, not paying off Saudi Princes so we can have access to their oil. We're going about this totally the wrong way.
Green architecture can create buildings that literally heat, cool, power and water themselves, which can save a building owner thousands of dollars a year, maybe millions depending on where they are and how big the building is.
Carbon sequestration was originally looked at as a giant drain. Why waste money to stuff carbon into the ground? But then they found that if you cool it to a liquid state and inject it into really old oil wells, you get a much higher return on the oil, which, especially with the price of oil today, can eke out a few more years of life from a dead or dying well, and at the end you just cap the sites and boom, that carbon is sealed for eternity. They also found that partnerships with other businesses can make money for everyone. In AZ (or maybe NM, it's one of the two), there a pilot program using sequested carbon injected into tubes to grow algae, which is harvested for a lot of valuable products (one of which ironically, is fuel). The owner of the power plant originally gave the stuff away, but after he learned what it could be worth, he's now making a product off his waste material! Now granted that sort of solution won't work for everyone, you need to have a lot of land to make up the emissions for an entire major coal fired plant (but then, we have tons of land here, it's really just another type of farming), but it's just one step of many.
There's a nano-tech company in Texas that's producing nano-solar panels which don't use silicon, and capture even more energy per square inch than silicon does, making them cheaper to produce, and more valuable at the same time. The next step they hope to come up with is solar absorbant paint. If the US became the world leader in solar panel production, and panels became cheap (which they are), that's major money for the US economy. GE is one of the world's biggest suppliers of Wind Power blades and turbines, and that's big money for them. China is trying to aquire the technology because they don't want to pay GE for it, but they are sticking to their guns, as well they should be.
There are major health benefits to getting pollutants out of the air, especially for urban areas where various types of lung disease are far more prominant and dangerous. That's billions more that comes right out of our HHS budget.
The watchword is: Efficiency. Do what we do for a much lower operating price, and make money off selling the way to do it. A green economy equals green money, so it's doubly a true way to frame the issue.
Spending from private investors on solar power is up something like 20% in the last couple years, and the same for wind energy. Investors are only getting started on wave and tidal energy, which they think could be the biggest and best producer yet (I agree, from what I've read). Government spending on research is dropping steadily however. I think we're going to get there eventually, because private corporations realize, like the Bush Administration and naysayers don't, that there is some serious money to be made in a Green economy, and they are leading the way, not waiting for the Republicans to finally get on board.
Much as I am an environmentalist, our economy could really use the shot in the arm that is a Green push. Eventually we could become a net EXPORTER of energy to other people, rather than an overly massive importer. A petro-based economy is a HUGE drag on efficiency and a HUGE anchor that is weighing us down. Our goal should be a 21st century economy to make sure we stay on top of the world economy, for a bit longer anyway. Why are we trying so hard to shoot ourselves in the foot?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, could you make a list of MAJOR scientific consensuses that were widely held to be fact and ended up being false?
I can identify some from recent times -- major scientific consensus that is now no longer believed.
Rejection of continental drift.
The blank slate, the idea that there is no innate human nature. (Steven Pinker has a good book on this, titled The Blank Slate for some reason.)
Rejection of innate human grammar, which Chomsky put an end to.
Phrenology.
Eugenics.
You could also say Newtonian physics, Lamarckian evolution, phlogiston, the young earth, steady state universe, and any other scientific theory that's discredited because after all that's what scientists do: they try to discredit their theories and hope that they fail. I just tried to list ones where I think they should have known better.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Don't forget Spontaneous Generation, and add to that the mistaken belief that diseases like Yellow Fever and Malaria were spread through being in proximity or contact with carriers of the disease.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:On petroleum scarcity alone, there are strong reasons for finding solutions to petrochemical dependency now. To my mind, the question is whether we take the steps now to be an industrial leader in the future, or take editorials like Card's as excuses not to act with a sense of urgency.
Amen.
Yes, yes, yes (says the degree-enabled but not-yet-professionally licensed chemical engineer-in-training).
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
In every single one of those cases, with the exception of eugenics (which is perfectly feasible scientifically, but was abandoned because it is morally abhorrent), the people who disproved the established dogma were themselves scientists, publishing in peer reviewed literature. That fundamentally separates them from the folks trying to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change, who are doing no such thing. If you can name a single case where the scientific community remained obstinate in the face of overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence replicated by a number of independent investigators, then you might have a point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz:
quote:Out of curiosity, could you make a list of MAJOR scientific consensuses that were widely held to be fact and ended up being false?
I can identify some from recent times -- major scientific consensus that is now no longer believed.
Rejection of continental drift.
The blank slate, the idea that there is no innate human nature. (Steven Pinker has a good book on this, titled The Blank Slate for some reason.)
Rejection of innate human grammar, which Chomsky put an end to.
Phrenology.
Eugenics.
You could also say Newtonian physics, Lamarckian evolution, phlogiston, the young earth, steady state universe, and any other scientific theory that's discredited because after all that's what scientists do: they try to discredit their theories and hope that they fail. I just tried to list ones where I think they should have known better.
I'm not convinced all of those were disproved in the 20th century, or that they were all created after the peer reviewed scientific process came into being. The scale isn't anywhere near comparable.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
How about global cooling in the 1970's?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: How about global cooling in the 1970's?
It's a myth. There was I believe one book, a few media articles and a couple of scientific papers that indicated it was a future possibility. There is absolutely no comparison between that and work that has now been done by literally thousands of scientists from every part of the world which points to global warming.
[ March 19, 2007, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Global cooling was really no more than looking at the Ice Age cycle and saying "we're about due for another one." Which is probably true, on a geological time scale.
In fact, the argument was based in part on the fact that the earth is already about as warm as it ever was throughout the ice age period, which, when you consider it, makes global warming even scarier, especially because it is happening WAY faster than a geological time scale.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:On petroleum scarcity alone, there are strong reasons for finding solutions to petrochemical dependency now. To my mind, the question is whether we take the steps now to be an industrial leader in the future, or take editorials like Card's as excuses not to act with a sense of urgency.
How exactly could someone use an essay of Card's as an excuse to drag their feet about petroleum dependency? Card is a huge advocate of solving that problem with tremendous urgency. He just isn't motivated by fear of global warming.
Since global warming isn't the only reason, or even the most urgent reason, to reduce our use of petroleum, it would be really stupid for someone to lose their sense of urgency because of an article like this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Don't forget Spontaneous Generation
BB, Has this not been addressed to your satisfaction the last two times you brought this up?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, um, shouldn't your dad be talking about the urgency of the petroleum issue? Because people are going to come away from any credible attack on global warming thinking, "Oh, gee, environmentalists are a bunch of know-nothing alarmists, and we don't need to do anything about our environmental footprint." If that's not his intent, maybe he should spend an article explaining which environmental causes he thinks are worth our urgent attention.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: On petroleum scarcity alone, there are strong reasons for finding solutions to petrochemical dependency now. To my mind, the question is whether we take the steps now to be an industrial leader in the future, or take editorials like Card's as excuses not to act with a sense of urgency.
It's sad that Mr. Card doesn't try to be a consensus builder. It's incredible to think how much he might accomplish if he treated his 'opponents' as people instead of...opponents, as 'elites'.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [I'm not convinced all of those were disproved in the 20th century, or that they were all created after the peer reviewed scientific process came into being. The scale isn't anywhere near comparable.
I don't know what you mean by scale.
All of those except the ones in the last paragraph were abandoned in the 20th century. I thought phrenology went away in the 1800's but Wikipedia says 20th.
The most recent ones I mentioned were
reaction against Chomsky's theory: started in 1959 when he published Verbal Behavior
the Steady State universe -- started in 1948, ended in the 1960's when cosmic background microwave radiation was discovered
reaction against continental drift -- started in the 1920's
the Blank Slate started earlier but was strong through the 1950's and 1960's and still not been completely abandoned.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:So, um, shouldn't your dad be talking about the urgency of the petroleum issue?
Isn't that a little bit like the pro-abortion folks who say, "Shouldn't you be devoting your energy to helping children outside the womb?"
The fact that Card wrote THIS essay about global warming doesn't mean that he hasn't also written (or can't also write) other essays that do exactly what you're asking for.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My sociology teacher also said that there have now been like 3500 peer-reviewed journal articles supporting anthropogenic global warming--and he's yet to find a single one that's against it. All of the dissent is in the popular media.
I know that last part to be untrue. I had a professor in college (an expert in the field of climatology, whose research was focused on climate change) who disagreed with the notion that anthropogenic global warming had been proven. He definitely qualifies as more than just "popular media". This was five years ago, so he might have been persuaded just recently to change his views, but I am doubtful.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The fact that Card wrote THIS essay about global warming doesn't mean that he hasn't also written (or can't also write) other essays that do exactly what you're asking for.
Has he?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, I'm not sure how you think what you wrote contradicts what you quoted. Could you explain?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Rejection of innate human grammar, which Chomsky put an end to.
Chomsky's theories (or the theories that evolved from his) are still highly controversial. There is anything but consensus on the matter.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: In every single one of those cases, with the exception of eugenics (which is perfectly feasible scientifically, but was abandoned because it is morally abhorrent), the people who disproved the established dogma were themselves scientists, publishing in peer reviewed literature. That fundamentally separates them from the folks trying to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change, who are doing no such thing. If you can name a single case where the scientific community remained obstinate in the face of overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence replicated by a number of independent investigators, then you might have a point.
Lyrhawn asked for a list of MAJOR scientific consensuses that were widely held to be fact and ended up being false, so I gave an answer. That was the point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Has he?
Yes.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Rejection of innate human grammar, which Chomsky put an end to.
Chomsky's theories (or the theories that evolved from his) are still highly controversial. There is anything but consensus on the matter.
Right: there was consensus, but there isn't any more.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Qaz, The one you brought up in my field (the Blank Slate) was never a consensus. It was prevelant among a certain group of psychologists, but was by no means held by near the entirety of the field.
Dag, Could you point to one?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's in the world watch columns. If I have time later, I'll search. He calls for abandoning the use of petroleum for cars in a fixed time period - not sure what.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:So, um, shouldn't your dad be talking about the urgency of the petroleum issue?
Isn't that a little bit like the pro-abortion folks who say, "Shouldn't you be devoting your energy to helping children outside the womb?"
Not really. Not when people are using his essays (and others like it from others who claim "global warming is a myth") as ammunition for the "See, we don't need to worry about any of that silly environmentalism crap" camp.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's also the question of relative weighing. If someone spent 95% of their efforts on one thing and 5% on another, I think - if both parties regard the second as more important - it is legitmate to question why this is.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I am fully willing to believe that Card is a staunch believer in the need to reduce reliance on petroleum on both a local and international level for reasons other than CO2 emission. I am also willing to believe that The next essay will speak eloquently on the subject.
That essay is not this essay. This essay has several pages that say those who support the notion of CO2 causing global warming are a pagan socialist cult of duplicitous liars who are so wrong-headed that they want to spread their lies to everyone’s children, and three paragraphs that say the pagan socialist cult of duplicitous liars want some of the right things, albeit mostly for the wrong reasons.
From a context-neutral point, the message I find I’d be most likely to take from the essay is not the necessity of petroleum conservation, but that the largest and best-known advocates of petroleum conservation and related issues are alarmists.
In a sound-bite world, to call someone an alarmist is to advocate ignoring them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don't burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
I made the numbers up. Maybe where I said five years, it should be ten.
Then again, maybe where I said thirty years, we'll find ourselves wishing that somebody had insisted on fifteen.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don't know when, but we do know it will happen.
quote:There's also the question of relative weighing. If someone spent 95% of their efforts on one thing and 5% on another, I think - if both parties regard the second as more important - it is legitmate to question why this is.
Why?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The basic assumption in game theory is that the value someone places on something can be inferred by how much resources they are willing to trade for it. Do you disagree with that assumption?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course I do, assuming you're not tautologically defining "value someone places on something" as "thing they commit the most resources to."
But that's not really what I meant by "Why?"
Why do you need to comment and question on what OSC values and why is it legitimate that you do so? And "legitimate" must mean more here than it does in the sentence "It's legitimate to question and comment on everything," otherwise there would have been no need to defend the legitimacy of the questioning in the first place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand your question. I was responding to this:
quote:Isn't that a little bit like the pro-abortion folks who say, "Shouldn't you be devoting your energy to helping children outside the womb?"
by pointing out that the relative frequency of things changes the legitimacy of this question. I'm not sure what your why means in this context. Are you asking why I thought what I said was relevant? If so, I can explain.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That assumption is not one of game theory, but of economics, and its for a narrow area of value: exchange value.
Many economists do assume that for most things which are routinely exchanged, exchange value closely approximates, for most people, "how much they value something" in a general sense, though that sense is not well-defined.
Also, even as a simple measure of exchange value you are misusing the idea. Exchange value is determined by how much someone would be willing to pay for a particular thing, not how much they do pay. In fact, exchange value is very rarely equal to what people pay, as paying more makes extremely little sense, and there are many factors that enable people to pay less.
The total exchange value of someone's consumption is the sum of the amounts they would be willing to pay for each marginal unit of the thing up to the amount they consume.
Lets talk about water. The amount someone would be willing to pay for the first marginal unit of water (say, the amount to keep one person alive for a year) is astronomical. The amount for the second, also fairly large. The amount for the two hundredth, not so much.
Very few people pay very much for the water they consume, but that doesn't mean they don't value it as I outline above.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That assumption is not one of game theory
Perhaps you could explain how it is printed on the first page of my game theory text book and has been a central part of the introduction to every game theory class I've ever taken then?
Yes, I used it simplisticly. That's all I needed for my purpose.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You didn't just use it simplistically, you used it incorrectly. The amount someone spends on something is not a measure of the amount they would spend on something.
Its printed on the first page of your game theory text book because most people publishing in game theory are economists or were introduced to it through economics and because many famous results in game theory are also results in economics.
That is, there are many games (in the game theoretic sense) that use that assumption.
It is, however, perfectly possible to do game theory without that assumption. Furthermore, all games written with that assumption could be phrased as purely numeric games and obtain the same result, eliminating that assumption entirely. It is useful for framing, not necessary.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I disagree with what you are saying. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you could advance some reasons you are disagreeing?
The comment on it not being an assumption of game theory was a minor remark before getting into my main point. It is also the easiest to show I am wrong with; merely propose a game which I cannot eliminate that assumption from without undermining the game theoretic qualities of the game and you have done so.
My main point was to correct a flawed use of economic theory that proceeded as if value was equal to amount paid. When you stated the assumption you were correct; when you used it you were incorrect:
quote:If someone spent 95% of their efforts on one thing and 5% on another
That's a statement about amount paid, not amount one is willing to pay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think you get how much I don't care.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Its printed on the first page of your game theory text book because most people publishing in game theory are economists or were introduced to it through economics and because many famous results in game theory are also results in economics.
I'm pretty sure some version of 'exchange theory' is used in all the social sciences.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: it was an observation grounded in being familiar with several major game theory textbooks (and their authors, in one case personally) and with game theory itself, not an assumption about exclusivity to economics
MrSquicky: you can even just name a game relying on that assumption or a paper containing such a game, I'm familiar with all of the classic examples and could look up anything else. It would take fewer characers than writing that you don't care.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, o.k. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
My point, above, was that Card is a big proponent of ending our dependency on gasoline, and simultaneously, is a big opponent of trusting the Global Warming model. He thinks that both are important issues, and writes essays on both. I happen to know that he has been planning another future essay that returns to the "let's end our car addiction" subject with great force. I'm sure that opponents of his position on that subject will think he is using his resources irresponsibly with that essay, and should have spent more time debunking Global Warming
In any case, to watch people react to this Global Warming essay as though its existence is so horrifying that it invalidates everything else he has ever said or will ever say on other subjects is annoying to me
"Why did Card spend his resources on this issue, instead of elsewhere, where he could do more good?"
Because his resources aren't parceled out the way you seem to assume. Each topic choice isn't a referendum on the urgency of every issue he could have addressed. The necessity of keeping up audience interest means that he must write on a different subject every week. Even if he considered Issue X to be THE most important issue in the world, after he wrote an essay on it, he would need to write essays of similar size and emphasis about completely different issues for several weeks before he could return to it. His choice and timing of subject is also affected by current events, by the publication of books that support or attack his position, and by the interests and conversations he's happened to have that week.
In other words, you're treating this essay like its existence is a definitive, quantifiable statement about the relative importance of this topic, compared to every other topic known to man. IE, because he wrote this essay, he must therefore not care enough about everything else.
I'm overstating the position for effect here, but even in its original form, it's still completely ridiculous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if he considered Issue X to be THE most important issue in the world, after he wrote an essay on it, he would need to write essays of similar size and emphasis about completely different issues for several weeks before he could return to it.
I would argue that every Card essay for the last few years has been, in part or in total, on the pernicious influence of so-called intellectual elites. Is this a topic he feels compelled to revisit? Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That's never the topic of the essay, though. The topic is "their pernicious influence ON X." Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Still, I worry that if intellectual elites came out strongly in support of reducing our dependence on petroleum, your dad would take a second look at his position to figure out where he went wrong. *grin*
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Then you don't know my dad Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Freely conceded. *laugh* I actually look forward to the petroleum essay, BTW. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Me too, I expected it sooner. I just sent him a reminder e-mail about it Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oooh, and he is already familiar with what Jane Jacobs says about livable cities and how to make local microcommunities flourish (thus minimizing the need for long journeys on petro-fuel to get daily needs addressed).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: In every single one of those cases, with the exception of eugenics (which is perfectly feasible scientifically, but was abandoned because it is morally abhorrent), the people who disproved the established dogma were themselves scientists, publishing in peer reviewed literature. That fundamentally separates them from the folks trying to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change, who are doing no such thing. If you can name a single case where the scientific community remained obstinate in the face of overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence replicated by a number of independent investigators, then you might have a point.
Lyrhawn asked for a list of MAJOR scientific consensuses that were widely held to be fact and ended up being false, so I gave an answer. That was the point.
Next you have to prove that the scientific community that created them and the one that disproved them are the same thing.
Why? Because you're claiming that since 'scientists' were wrong back then, they are probably wrong today. Not that that proves anything by itself, but that still seems to be your argument. But if the scientific process, and the process of peer review and research aren't the same today as they were back then, then your point is moot.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We might as well do the reverse while we're at it and show how since the skeptics were wrong 'back then', they're wrong now.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
My argument is not that "scientists" are probably wrong (it would depend on what they were saying), but that there have been major scientific consensuses that have been abandoned in the past century. I was answering your question. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.
Of course peer review and research, like everything else in the world, always change, but this does not mean we can never draw lessons from history. If I wanted to refute the idea that since for example continental drift skeptics were wrong in the past, global warming skeptics are probably wrong today, I would just point out that it doesn't follow. Continental drift and global warming have nothing to do with each other;, and whether people believe something, is a really weak argument for whether something is true in science.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, you're right. It was Resh who was making that argument. You answered the question and I mistakenly assumed it was you without going back to check my original question to see who I was asking it of.
I don't think this particular "lesson" means a whole lot though. I could cancel it out by pointing out astronomy was set back hundreds of years as a science by skeptics who had no idea what was going on, they just refused to believe what to them sounded like crazed impossibility. The lessesons in historical science for the naysayers being wrong and the scientists being wrong are both there.
But we're in a new era of science now. I think from a historical point of view, the comparisons aren't really all that valid.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Surely the comparisons to the 1950's are valid?
I think we can learn a lot about what modern science is like by considering things over the past 100 years. Not the topic of this thread, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would say theories postulated from the 40's and 50's onward count. But I don't believe anyone has suggested such a claim that was made and disproved in this thread.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Whoops, I've neglected this thread for a while.
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:Euripides: "The Science is in!"
Well, I'm convinced now. Because we all know how infallible and un-ideological scientists are.
Oh yeah, thanks for putting an exclamation mark where there was none. Because everyone should know that I'm hysterical and dogmatic.
quote:Did you read Card's article? If it didn't raise any doubts in you, then you really are hopeless.
Yes I have. And it has raised serious doubts about the way Mann's study was conducted, and any conclusions drawn from that study.
Yet I don't consider the vast body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming to be 'debunked,' despite the fact that the IPCC was enthralled by the visual appeal of that graph. OSC has argued that this is how all evidence for anthropogenic global warming is manufactured. I'm not going to take his word for it. There are bound to be a few rotten studies used to support a theory as profoundly important and widely discussed and debated as global warming.
And yes, I'm getting a copy of the books cited in the essay. Meanwhile you should follow The Rabbit's advice and pay your nearest university library a visit.
quote:I mean, I can see taking evolutionary theory on faith.
I don't, and why would that be any different?
quote:But for global warming being caused by humans, "the science is in"...
Yeah, you should go read some of it.
Jhai,
quote:Very rough analogy: suppose you know that there is some sort of wild animal in a room of your house, and you're pretty certain it's destroying stuff and generally making a mess. Once you realize that the animal is in there, you could charge right in & try to kick it out. However, you may be faced with a small squirrel, a rabid raccoon, an angry mother bear, or some other sort of animal. That's where the uncertainty comes in. In this case, it might be better to wait a while, gather more information, develop/gather tools (like a dart gun), before you go charging in. This might be true despite the fact that, the longer you wait, the more damaged the room becomes. Sure, you might be able to get the animal out without waiting, but you could come out of the fight pretty banged up.
As Paul said, we don't know exactly what will happen if CO2 levels are reduced, but the damage greenhouse gases are doing now and will continue to do if unchecked, will be catastrophic. The unanticipated side effects of reducing CO2 to the levels it was at before we started polluting the earth en masse are highly unlikely to be as damaging. I'm all for studying the possibilities and using sound data to form projections. Yet in daily life and deciding policy, we have to gauge our choices based on levels of probability and magnitude.
Another rough analogy: Suppose you have discovered fire for the first time. You hold your hand in the flame, and it begins to burn. You want to take your hand out of the flame, but you've never been burned before and don't know what cool air will do to the wound. So you wait.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I have discovered recently that my participation on this forum (as well as a few others) and generally in all the friendly debates I find myself most likely to be engaged in have me taking the angle most diametrically opposite the one exhibiting the most flagrant displays of arrogance and notions of superiority and enlightenment. So I'm learning some things about myself here, and I thank you all for that. I think my entire contribution to any future threads here will basically be along the lines of a suggestion to "get over yourself."
P.S. Super busy recently; all but unable to drop in anymore. I'll participate a bit more in the near soon.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Resh, if you're not going to engage with the substance of your opponents' posts or can't at this time, at least refrain from making a sarcastic ad hominem attack.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
What are you talking about? No sarcasm, no ad hominem. A touch of snarkiness, perhaps.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think accusing people here of arrogance and "notions of superiority and enlightenment" certainly counts as an ad hominem attack.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
This is a report on Gore's recent proposals to Congress. The first part of item 1, a freeze on CO2 emissions, would be both easy and not needed. US CO2 emissions are flat in this decade (declining per capita) and the same is true for the European countries I checked. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.htm
[ March 21, 2007, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Whom did I accuse?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it required that you accuse a specific individual, when instead you've accused everyone disagreeing with you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: When the scientific consensus has been wrong, it has NOT been the media or non-scientific political movements that have been right.
I'd like to emphasize this good point. When science is "wrong", in most of the cases that have been pointed out, it was science that ended up developing the correct theory, not the popular opinion, the media, religion, or business interests. Credit must be given to the correct parties. To add insult to injury, in some cases, science was "wrong" only because it was used to rationalise previously held beliefs from non-scientific movements. Ex, eugenics was just religious and racial prejudice wrapped up in a new-fangled "science" sugar coating.
Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the motives for the people driving this debate. If there was proof against global warming, you can bet that the scientist who disproved it would become a big name in both the scientific and world communities, another Galileo or Venter. A scientist who contributes yet another paper to the existing thousands is nameless. Meanwhile, the people disputing it either have competing interests (businesses, voters, who would be damaged by having to do anything about global warming) or simply have religious beliefs leading to an axe to grind against science.
Why take the word of a group that is biased against that of a group that in essence contains built-in checks and balances?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Meanwhile, the people disputing it either have competing interests (businesses, voters, who would be damaged by having to do anything about global warming) or simply have religious beliefs leading to an axe to grind against science.
The people promoting global warming fears also have competing interests such as continuation of grants, new carbon offset companies, flourenscent lightbulb manufacturers, solar panel companies, alternative envergy companies. How many scientists are being paid to continue to prove Global Warming? There are billions of dollars on both sides of the issue
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Which is only one of the reasons that the argument isn't sound. We often use "ad hominem" to mean "insult," but it just means addressing the person rather than the argument. We shouldn't take the word of the biased group against the one with the checks and balances (I'm not sure which one Al Gore fits into and which one his opponents fit into, but it doesn't matter), but we should instead take nobody's word for it and look at the arguments instead.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Which is why it wasn't an ad hominem. I said that I find myself "taking the angle most diametrically opposite the one exhibiting the most flagrant displays of arrogance and notions of superiority and enlightenment." If you, Tom, can point to where I called any person or group of persons arrogant, I'll concede the point. But I do believe I was saying the argument is displaying "arrogance and notions of superiority and enlightenment," and this is generally what I oppose about so-called liberal ideology.
Nice try, though.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Mucas, you post is full of unfounded statements. Eugenics was not particularly religious, if I'm not mistaken. It was developed from Darwinistic theory and was generally embraced by atheists like... Hitler, for instance. After all, Evolution allows you to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
As for the evolution of science in contrast with religion, science has been wholly mutable for all it's existence, and yet most religions have maintained their core tenets since their inception and still have practical uses today. If you wish to apply scientific standards to religion, you've got something there, but if you look at actual evidence of history, it's evident that religion/philosophy as been the single most effective force in the progress of civilization. That should speak for itself, but of course religion must be destroyed at all costs, even if it means abandoning the truth.
Finally, there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming. The fishy thing about the whole thing, the part that seems to be driven by some agenda and requires subversion and oftentimes [edit]intimidation in order to maintain its place as "science," is the anthropogenic causation theory. And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
[ March 23, 2007, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It was developed from Darwinistic theory and was generally embraced by atheists like... Hitler, for instance."
To be correct, that statement should read "christians like... hitler, for instance."
Now, stalin was an atheist. But he didn't embrace eugenics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, he mis-spelled the name. It ought to be ZOMG HITLAR!!!!111oneoneone.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
*Trying not to laugh at above statement* [edit] Goldner's post, I mean.
Hitler used Christianity as a tool. To quote Joseph Goebbels: ""The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
At any rate, I retract my statement about Hitler being an atheist. Whatever he believed, I think it would be a stretch to call him a Christian.
[ March 23, 2007, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I really don't. The worship he engaged in during his life was entirely christian worship. His church membership was of the christian variety. And the church accepted him as a member. And he claimed to be a christian.
If you want to argue that his behavior was not the behavior a christian should exhibit, then fine. But, thats never been the criteria for being a christian unless people want to disown their co-religionists.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:Mucas, you post is full of unfounded statements.
If it's so full of them, provide another example. Eugenics is at best a grey area, especially in its initial application by US immigration. Hitler's application of genetics is a worse example for your case; it wasn't scientific at all. The science was layered on top of the old language of ethnic cleansing.
quote:It was developed from Darwinistic theory and was generally embraced by atheists like... Hitler, for instance.
Many of the religious have manufactured other excuses for ethnic cleansing. Also, atheism is not a moral philosophy. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods and the supernatural. Hitler wasn't a monster because he was an atheist. He was a monster because of his violent and cruel political and pseudo-spiritual ideology.
quote:As for the evolution of science in contrast with religion, science has been wholly mutable for all it's existence, and yet most religions have maintained their core tenets since their inception and still have practical uses today.
The core principle of science is the scientific method. That has not changed since the method was fomalised, though scientists had been using the method intuitively for centuries beforehand.
The fact that scientific knowledge is constantly adjusting in light of new evidence is its primary virtue. We learn more and more every day.
Religion on the other hand is not amenable to change when new evidence is brought up, except by reinterpreting the religion to accommodate the evidence, or ignoring the conflict. Remember Galileo? The fact that religion is stubborn makes it less credible, actually.
What has remained constant with science is the methodology of gathering new information.
I'll have to quote KoM here; it's elementary logic.
quote:If you wish to apply scientific standards to religion, you've got something there, but if you look at actual evidence of history, it's evident that religion/philosophy as been the single most effective force in the progress of civilization.
That depends entirely on what you define as progress. If you mean moral progress (and its not entirely clear we're making progress in that direction), then take religion out of the equation. The change of moral sensibilities to what it is today are the result mainly of moral philosophy and evolutionary psychology outside of religion (which you claim has unchanging tenets, anyway). This was recently discussed in this thread.
quote:Finally, there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming.
I'd agree, if everyone looked at the long-term consequences of their actions. But many oil companies and industrialists would disagree, and much of the current establishment seems convinced that going green would cost them or the country too much. Which is not true.
quote:And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
Have you read it?
[Edit: sp]
[ March 23, 2007, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: ... competing interests such as continuation of grants, new carbon offset companies, flourenscent lightbulb manufacturers, solar panel companies, alternative envergy companies. How many scientists are being paid to continue to prove Global Warming? ...
At the risk of being vulgar, *Show me the money.* You show me the amounts of money that the kinds of companies you listed contributed to scientists. I'll show you the amounts of money that businesses that oppose action have contributed to scientists. I'm fully prepared to be surprised.
Let's start with an initial pot of $10,000 per scientist and 16 million from Exxon to various lobbyist organizations formed of "scientific spokespeople", for a start. Let's see how high we can go.
quote: Originally posted by Resh: Finally, there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming...
I thought I already covered that with my reference to Ventor. However, if you need the background... Back during the days of the Human Genome Project, millions of dollars of public money was being thrown into the project using a technique known as shotgun sequencing. The project was slated to go on for many years. Ventor disagreed that it would tak so long and said he had a method for doing whole genome shotgun sequencing. Many scientists were skeptical, so he started his own company and just *did it*. Now he has money, fame, and a big name.
You can be sure that if a scientist could disprove global warming he would just *do it* because disproving a scientific consensus gives you a lot more fame than just riding the bandwagon.
How many people remember Einstein for revolutionalising Newtonian physics? How many people remember John Smith from Cottington who published a paper agreeing with Newton?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK -
Most of the things you listed there "flourenscent lightbulb manufacturers, solar panel companies, alternative envergy companies," are going to make money regardless of whether or not global warming is a reality. Why? Because they are efficient, and they save people money. They could be sold on that alone, and don't need a climate change scientist to prove the point.
Should we stop believing in anti-biotics research? After all, isn't it all just a giant scheme to make billions for the big pharmas? We keep hearing all this naysaying from scientists about how these big diseases are coming and all this genetic mutation crap, but hey, I feel fine. I won't let those money hungry scientists tell me how to live my life!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming..."
What I mean is, I don't what the problem with global warming is. The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
Have you read it?
Read what? Did you laugh? Because that was damned funny what I wrote.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:What I mean is, I don't what the problem with global warming is. The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
Are you being facetious? If not, you're more ignorant than I thought. Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species, melting icecaps, submerged coastal cities, flooding in certain areas while there are severe droughts in other, violent storms, depleted food supplies, and the subsequent waves of refugees escaping natural disasters, to name a few things. Seriously, why not go see An Inconvenient Truth? If you deem that it's liberal propaganda, then go fact-check it.
quote:
quote:
quote:And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
Have you read it?
Read what? Did you laugh? Because that was damned funny what I wrote.
Read the science. No. No, it wasn't.
You've ignored the substance of my past two posts. Why not address them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
Even if science were able to give me two more hands, I would still not be able to count on all my fingers the number of times that this idea has been fully contradicted for you on this forum alone.
But here's to biogenetic enhancement anyway!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have discovered recently that my participation on this forum (as well as a few others) and generally in all the friendly debates I find myself most likely to be engaged in have me taking the angle most diametrically opposite the one exhibiting the most flagrant displays of arrogance and notions of superiority and enlightenment. So I'm learning some things about myself here, and I thank you all for that. I think my entire contribution to any future threads here will basically be along the lines of a suggestion to "get over yourself."
In the last page alone, you tried to link the issue of global warming to eugenics, hitler, and pejoratively to "Islam." You have also demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to comprehend the failures of your positions, even as you continue to assert them. There is more than enough reason why someone would be trying to concuss themselves against their keyboard within two pages of trying to reason with you.
If a bunch of very erudite and well-spoken people on a forum such as this seem to be reliably annoyed and frustrated with you to the point of exasperation or outright ridicule, ask not with whom the fault lies; it lies with you.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
quote:Should we stop believing in anti-biotics research? After all, isn't it all just a giant scheme to make billions for the big pharmas? We keep hearing all this naysaying from scientists about how these big diseases are coming and all this genetic mutation crap, but hey, I feel fine. I won't let those money hungry scientists tell me how to live my life!
We do keep getting arguments about who's making money off a theory, but it really doesn't have anything to do with who's right. In an earlier post there was something about that anybody who doesn't support man-made global warming is paid off by oil companies. I think Lyrhawn is right. Money doesn't make your right or wrong.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods."
Umm, yes, millions of species have gone extinct in previous warming episodes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
Think about this. It does not make sense. If what you are saying is true, then an Ice Age in Earth's history would, after the first time, no longer lead to the extinction of any species later on, because those species would've been killed in the first one.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Well, yes. Unless the ice age was so many millions of years ago that fragile species have had the chance to evolve since then. But our last ice age was only about 10,000 years ago according to Wikipedia.
Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, yes. Unless the ice age was so many millions of years ago that fragile species have had the chance to evolve since then. But our last ice age was only about 10,000 years ago according to Wikipedia.
Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again.
Wait a minute...you're addressing the point that an extinct species can't go extinct again? Who on Earth was making that point?
Furthermore, just because a species survived an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and thrived in those 10,000 years since then, does not mean it still retains the traits that helped it survive the first one. That's just silly.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again."
Umm. Wow. Just wow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again.
This is supposed to address what?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. Species that can't survive one of these fluctuations, or lose that ability to survive in a short period of time like the 1000 years since the Medieval Warming Period or the 8000 years since the Holocene Optimum, all have something in common: they're dead.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who's made that claim?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense. And if you think I'm unable to address your arguments, Sam, and am unable to recognize where the real problem is, then you don't recognize why I'm even here in the first place.
Would you argue with a religious fanatic to the point of "concussing yourself against the keyboard"? No? Then why should I? Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
As Huey Long said, when fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of anti-fascism.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
Think about this. It does not make sense.
If what you meant wasn't that global warming will drive millions of species to extinction, then maybe you could clarify what you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species,
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
I would not hold my breath.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Why would you? You're not gonna drown.
I draw the analogy because we don't have Muslims running around cutting off heads. But the order stands. Do you think the global warming extremists do not believe that humans who do not fall into line with their beliefs deserve to die for the irreversible damge we are doing to our fragile planet?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think 'millions' of species is perhaps just a wee bit hyperbolic, honestly. Ecosystems aren't that fragile. Say a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand. And, honestly, if climate change knocks out the agriculture of our current bread baskets, then the fate of obscure species of snail darters will be the least of our worries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why would you? You're not gonna drown.
I draw the analogy because we don't have Muslims running around cutting off heads. But the order stands. Do you think the global warming extremists do not believe that humans who do not fall into line with their beliefs deserve to die for the irreversible damge we are doing to our fragile planet?
Who are thse "global warming extremists"?
Are you talking about ELF? Or are you hyperbolically referring to every day global warming believers?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Qaz,
quote:The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous Ice Ages and warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. Species that can't survive one of these fluctuations, or lose that ability to survive in a short period of time like the 10K years since our last ice age, all have something in common: they're dead.
First of all, as others have pointed out, nobody made such a specious claim.
The vast majority (estimates range from about 96% to 99.9%) of species that have existed on earth have gone extinct, and most of those have gone extinct naturally.
You underestimate the importance of biodiversity in sustaining human life, especially the way it is now. (ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel by the way?) Consider too that the decreasing level of biodiversity is about 1,000 to 10,000 times more severe than it would be naturally, according to the IUCN (estimates range from the conservative 50 to 11,000 - see this short feature article), which maintains a list of threatened species.
Here is a great summary on the state of species extinction and biodiversity. Considering "15,589 species are known to be threatened with extinction" and only "1.9 million species have been described out of an estimated 5–30 million species that exist," 'millions' is not a bad estimate. An excerpt from the document on the importance of biodiversity to humans:
quote:Living organisms keep the planet habitable. Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces oxygen. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, which can help in the fight against global warming.
quote:The monetary value of goods and services provided by natural ecosystems (including gas regulation, waste treatment, and nutrient recycling) is estimated to amount to some 33 trillion dollars per year – nearly twice the global production resulting from human activities.
Many species are of immense value to humans as sources of food, medicines, fuel and building materials. Between 10,000 and 20,000 plant species are used in medicines worldwide.
quote:Currently about 100 million metric tons of aquatic organisms, including fishes, molluscs, and crustaceans, are taken from the wild every year and represent a vital contribution to world food security.
Meat from wild animals (wild meat) forms a critical contribution to food sources and livelihoods in many areas particularly in countries with high levels of poverty and food insecurity. A huge range of species are involved including monkeys, tapirs, antelopes, pigs, pheasants, turtles and snakes.
quote:The diversity of nature helps meet the recreational, emotional, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic needs of people.
This page is another great resource. If you scroll down on the section regarding mass extinctions, you'll see two examples of changing sea levels being the cause of mass extinctions. There is also information there on why biodiversity is being threatened today. Also see this short Nat Geo article.
If it's natural, what's so bad about it? Well, first of all, anthropogenic global warming isn't natural, and even if it was, what makes you so sure that the human race can sustain a population anywhere near the current one when resources are naturally depleted and climate change renders regions uninhabitable or harsh?
Climate change is part of the bigger problem of humanity taking from the earth more than it gives back. Of managing the planet we live on unsustainably. This includes forest loss, pollution, the CFC problem (which we've acted on), overfishing, overmining (open cut mines for example destroy entire mountain ranges), intensive agriculture (plantations for example), what have you.
Now think about what effect we're having on a geological time scale. You know about previous warming periods like the one which occurred during Mediaeval times, so presumably you know that climate change isn't something that happens overnight. But on a geological time scale, it really is overnight. Some of the charts in this document attest to that. Gore's slideshow has a similar graph showing the correlation between carbon emissions and temperature over 65,000 years IIRC; and the spike at the end of the graph takes CO2 levels to way above anything that has naturally occurred.
And why do you ignore my other points? How about flooding and drought? Depleted food supplies? This means starvation, it means the earth not being able to sustain such a large human population, it means regions being rendered uninhabitable for a variety of reasons not limited to flooding. In my area, less rain means not enough drinking water (and it's a current crisis; we're consuming a lot more than we collect) and more fires. The main economic centres of my country would be flooded. Ever been to the Maldives? Might be worth a visit, and take your camera. Your great grandkids might not be able to see it.
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
I don't know what you wanted me to laugh at last time, but this really is funny. Even the ELF doesn't kill people (or animals, actually).
quote:As Huey Long said, when fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of anti-fascism.
You have a fetish with throwing that word around, don't you?
Are you unable to respond to my posts Resh? Your 'why should I bother' argument doesn't cut it. You're still here posting medium-length messages, but haven't answered a simple question like 'Have you read the science regarding global warming, which you've decreed to be biased and invalid?'
[Edit: sp]
[ March 25, 2007, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense.
That's just the goddamned thing. You keep operating on the preassumptive principle that it's all nonsense, but guess which side is making all the convincing arguments.
Hint: not you
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Qaz,
quote:The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. ...
First of all, as others have pointed out, nobody made such a specious claim.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species,
I can't find a way that these statements don't contradict each other, so maybe you could help.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Some species died in previous warmings. Other species will die in upcoming warmings. Its really rather simple.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
OK, Euripides, that's one (more) making that claim. (Unless Paul means there will only be a few, not millions?)
quote:Other species will die in upcoming warmings.
Certainly, and certainly simple: there will be extinctions in any era including times of warming. That is something I don't think anyone will dispute. Euripides was talking about something more than that.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
They aren't equivalent statements.
I said that global warming will cause millions of extinctions.
Your paraphrased statement includes the claim that those species about to go extinct have survived all previous Ice Ages. Nowhere is that implied in my statement, and I've addressed natural extinctions in the above post.
You really can't see it?
And I'm assuming that by "don't contradict" you meant "contradict". But so what if they don't contradict? If you say that giraffes have long necks, and I paraphrase you as saying that giraffes have long pink necks, the statements don't contradict. It doesn't mean you believe my paraphrased statement is true.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There will be some probably large number, some species which have survived previous warming periods, and others which are new species. And some which have survived previous warming cycles by virtue of being in areas which did not warm to a degree that would kill off the species, but in this warming cycle will not have that luck. Etc.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
OK, I removed references to the Ice Ages. I don't know why it was useful, since the existence of ice ages is not controversial, but they're out.
No, I meant that I couldn't see a way that your statements don't contradict each other. The thing is, these millions of species that will presumably die from the next warming *did* survive previous temperature fluctuations. Some of them were warming periods. If these millions of species can't survive a warming period, then they did not survive the last one. The ones that exist today are the ones that can survive warming periods.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, they are the ones that could survive the temperature that existed at their habitat, and the other effects of the warming period (such as flooding) that occured at their habitat.
On top of that, new species are emerging all the time.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Qaz, it's usually poor forum etiquette to go back and change a post without nothing the change in square brackets or the like. It tends to make the subsequent posts make less sense.
Most of the species alive today would have existed during and survived mild warming periods like the recent one in Mediaeval times. Is that what you're trying to say?
Well, what you wrote initially is that they must have gone through numerous ice ages and warming periods (implicitly) as severe as the one about to come. That isn't the case. Once again you're looking at a geological phenomenon on a human timescale. The average lifespan of a species could be somewhere around 10 million years since its first appearance. Climate change has been occurring for much longer.
The climate change about to occur if no policy change is undertaken will be more severe than the Mediaeval Warming Period. Here's another carbon level graph, in case you didn't see the others. And this one makes the relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures rather clear. See how the blue line follows the red line, and how the red line is now clearly breaking the natural pattern and shooting up. The changes we're making to our planet are very sudden considering the lifespan of the planet so far.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense.
That's just the goddamned thing. You keep operating on the preassumptive principle that it's all nonsense, but guess which side is making all the convincing arguments.
Hint: not you
I've heard much more convincing arguments for all this from people much better at this than any of you. Yet somehow, I'm still not convinced! Maybe it's me. I'm just too hard-headed. Or maybe it's the arguments. They're only convincing to the converts. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a hard time figuring out why people don't immediately convert to their utterly convincing arguments. They don't understand that they're only readily apparent to the already converted.
That's why I find Islam a more apt comparison. Ther is no room for debate here! Global warming is real and must be stopped! Any dissent will not be tolerated! Bow down before the will of Gore-- I mean Gaia! Submit! Pay the Jizyah tax, in the form of tax breaks for Prius owners!
"Guess which side is making all the convincing arguments." I'm so surprised that you think your side is more convincing! I wonder if it's the same sort of process for you to make that determination as it is for me when I read Card's article and thought to myself, "wow, that is so true!"
This is why I said what I said in my initial post on this thread. About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance. That would be the side you are on, Sam.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That's why I find Islam a more apt comparison. Ther is no room for debate here! Global warming is real and must be stopped! Any dissent will not be tolerated! Bow down before the will of Gore-- I mean Gaia! Submit! Pay the Jizyah tax, in the form of tax breaks for Prius owners!
Yes, your comparison is perfect, because Islamic culture never debates anything ever and is singularly defined as being unyieldingly, ideologically obsequious towards proclamations on high.
Alternatively: what are you on about. are you really doing what I think you are doing.
quote:About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance. That would be the side you are on, Sam.
Woo!
Do I get a t-shirt?
"I did not compare global warming support to eugenics and nazis, and all I got was this T-shirt, and I guess I got called arrogant, that's cool i guess"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This is why I said what I said in my initial post on this thread. About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance.
And that's why I called it an ad hominem attack. Do you admit that you were wrong about that?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm going to start a thread dedicated solely to answering that thread, Tom. It will have ClaudiaTherese's name in the title. See you there!!!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have just read OSC recent World Watch Article on Climate Change and am too angry at him right now to be coherent. I will assume thaty Mr. Card wrote this article in good faith believe the lies which he has been told by others. But even so, a person of Mr. Card's stature has an ethical responsibility to verify the facts before publishing such an article which he has utterly failed to meet. Card is not a climate change scientist and in fact he isn't a scientist at all which is evident from article.
Scott, If you are interested in learning the truth about climate change science rather than defending the position you've taken I would be happy to discuss the details with you. I'd be happy to direct him you to unbiased sources where you can learn the basics of climate change science. I am deeply disappointed that you are publishing peaces of these nature which illustrate only that you know only enough about climate research to be dangerous. Because of your fame as a writer, many people listen to what you say. That gives you an ethical responsibility to speak the truth. An ethical responsibility which you have utterly failed on this issue.
I'll post more details on the factual errors when I've calmed down enough to be rational.
Example 1:
quote:If you pay close attention, you'll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying "Global Warming" lately. No, nowadays it's "Climate Change." Do you know why?
Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.
Oops.
Global Climate Change is the scientific term that has been used to describe the phenomenon known popularly as global warming. The term has been in use at least since the mid 80's. I can't say exactly when the term was coined since the electronic literature data base I just search only goes back 20 years.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that temperatures have been falling for the past 3 years. 2005 was the second hottest year since 1891 (1998 was the hottest). Although 2006 was cooler than 2005, it was hotter than every year since 1891 except 2005 and 1998. It's too early to tell about 2007.
[ March 26, 2007, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
I was not able to determine from the graph that the increase in temperature followed the CO2 increases rather than the reverse. The scale is too compressed. I looked online for a graph that was more stretched out but could not find one.
Regarding whether the last few years are cooler: I found conflicting claims. Wikipedia's graph showed that they were cooler than 1998 (but warmer than any other year since 1850), but it also showed very little warming 1850-1900, which doesn't match the raw data I used in a program earlier or graphs that I saw elsewhere. However it doesn't matter. 3 years is insignificant. We expect some random variation within such a short time frame.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Qaz, Mass extinctions are already happening without significant Climate Change.
Mass extinctions have happened in the past on several occasions and they never preclude a future mass extinction because evolution is a continueing process. There are millions of species that didn't exist during the last extinction.
But that aside, one key reason that the current Climate Change is expect to cause even more extinctions is the rate at which it is occurring. If the Climate changes over a few thousand years there are chances for species to adapt either evolving or migrating. Rapid Climate change precludes that.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I think both sides are engaged in histrionics and overzealousness.
Fact: we are releasing far more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before, barring theorized cataclyzmic events like super-meteor impacts.
Fact: the layers of our atmosphere (most notably ozone) have suffered damage in recent years, and it has been proven that a good deal of it was our (humans') fault.
Fact: we consumer more fossil fuels each consecutive year in the world as a whole.
Fact: regardless of what is causing climate change, it is happening and it is happening fast. Fast as in decades or centuries (depends on who you ask), not millenia.
That's enough for me. My next auto purchase will be a hybrid, and I've been pricing alternative energy providers for a while now. Already using CF lights (and saving money, bonus!). No protests, no waving of hands.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the ozone layer was largely healing itself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. Not going to happen until AFTER we stop pumping CFCs into the atmosphere.
Even then, it will take 40-50 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And I thought that was largely done as well.
Edit to add: I see we've made progress, with the Montreal Protocol, but not enough.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Qaz,
quote:OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
Please refer to my third last post. Yes, a major and rapid global warming will cause mass extinctions.
quote:I was not able to determine from the graph that the increase in temperature followed the CO2 increases rather than the reverse.
Read up on the basic mechanics of climate change.
quote:The scale is too compressed.
It's "compressed" because it shows thousands of years of data. Of course a major recent increase in CO2 emissions will look like a spike. That's really the point.
quote:I looked online for a graph that was more stretched out but could not find one.
You'll want to look for one that maps temperatures and CO2 levels over the past 30 years. Then the curve won't look so scary. Maybe it will make you feel better.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:You'll want to look for one that maps temperatures and CO2 levels over the past 30 years. Then the curve won't look so scary. Maybe it will make you feel better. [/QB]
I was hoping we could leave that kind of talk to Resh. I will take the high ground and not respond in kind. As you know, my stated interest in a more detailed graph was to find more detail.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, some CFCs take time to phase out -- refrigerants, especially. You can't realistically demand that everyone go buy a brand new fridge, have the cooling system on any car older than a certain number of years revamped, replace their old AC, etc. Especially since we don't really have perfect replacements yet. We have better refrigerants and better systems (with less refrigerant loss), but replacing the old ones is by necessity a gradual process.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Gosh, people are so seeensitive. What was wrong with what Euripides wrote? Snarky tone? That's what keeps things interesting!
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I feel like I should respond to this, since I started this thread, but I get tired every time I start reading through it...
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Gosh, people are so seeensitive. What was wrong with what Euripides wrote? Snarky tone? That's what keeps things interesting!
No, that's what keeps things frustrating for those of us who prefer to have civil discussions...
You seem to have a pretty lousy and self-centered definition of "interesting"!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
It doesn't even have to be hotter; heating up faster could also do it. Species that are able to adapt to slow changes in temperature can be wiped out by rapid changes. But really, you don't even need that. Conditions change in other ways than temperature, after all. A species could have survived the last major temperature cycle because factor X was favourable; now that has changed, the species is more fragile, and a large temperature change will wipe it out. Species interact: A new parasite might have arisen, which likes warm temperatures and wasn't present for the previous cycle. And so on.
With all that said, I still do think that 'millions' is exaggerated.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:With all that said, I still do think that 'millions' is exaggerated.
It's currently estimated that there are 10 million plant and animal species on the plant. There have been 5 mass extinction events in this planets history each of which wiped out over half of the existing species. The largest one wiped out 95% of the species. During the last mass extinction, around 65 million BP, two thirds of all species went extinct. A recent study reported that 70% of biologists believe we are in the process of the 6th mass extinction and that this current extinction event is the result of human activities including but not limited to greenhouse gas emissions.
If these biologist are correct, it is not an exaggeration to expect that millions of species will go extinct. It should be pointed out that greenhouse emissions and the resulting climate change are not the only human activity that is causing animals to go extinct, habitat destruction is probably the biggest contributor at this time. It should, however, also be pointed out that climate change is likely to exacerbate all the other human factors that are leading to the extinction of species.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)