Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

But, Rosborne 97 9, you certainly are aware that the media has manipulated the reports most non-scientists read. An October 2007 survey of US scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's Working Group I, found that only 20 percent of respondents claim to believe that human activity is the PRINCIPAL driver of climate change.

The media manipulates everything, it's their job to sell stories. Politicians manipulate everything, it's their job to get votes. But science should be above all that, science exists to generate workable theories based on the data.

So far I've seen the data which shows a clearly natural trend in warming/cooling. What I haven't seen is clear data which shows how much human activity is affecting/altering the natural patterns. Lots of data out there proves that the Earth is warming, but we already knew that. What we need is a way to measure the relative contribution of human activity to that warming.

genoves wrote:

See http://.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

The link doesn't work.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So if the global warming religionists--whether they be well intended or opportunistic--should find their house of cards tumbling down about them, will we then go back to alarmism re global cooling?

I don't know Fox. What they should do is go back to the simple argument that we should stop polluting the environment. The same argument used in the 60's.

I'm in favor of reducing our impact on the environment as much as possible, but without derailing entire economies to do it. Unless we want to live like American Indians, were always going to have some impact on the environment.

I'm hoping that as our economies and technologies improve we will gain the knowledge and skill to make meaningful changes in our behavior which will benefit the environment.

Ultimately we will have to face the fact that this planet isn't environmentally stable (as the ice cores show). We will either have to adapt to huge cycles of radical temperature change, or we will have to have sufficient technology to control the global environment. And I think we're a LONG way off from being able to effectively control the environment.

1 Reply

@genoves,

I have no basis to be skeptical as to the validity of the O16/O18 data. The techniques are well studied and understood. They are applied quite regularly and the QA requirements of Good LAb Practices (GLP) are in effect.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I'm not sure of this is the study Genoves is referring to but it seems likely..
As usual he gets most of the facts wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/03/the_climatologist_survey.php

Quote:

A plurality of 45 to 50 % of the respondents said they agreed with the IPCC's Fourth Assessment, the one that was released last year. Which generates these conclusions:

2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2 .

3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.

How genoves got his statement out of the study is unknown but it isn't supported by the survey that had a less than 10% return rate.

This is the article by the surveys authors
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/

They had 140 responses from 23 countries out of 1807 scientists contacted.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

There is nobody more passionate re environmental issues than I am Ros--check my profile. It's the same profile I've had since I first joined A2K years ago. You won't find me defending anybody who is intentionally or carelessly polluting anywhere.

There is a huge difference, however, in having concern for the quality of our air, water, soil, the living things on the Earth, and the aesthetic beauty that adds to joy and inventing and promoting flawed science as necessity for preserving quality of life. There is a difference between protecting the land and oceans from poisoning with heavy metals and the milder and more benign and temporary pollution that occurs naturally when humans and other living things simply live their lives. Fanaticism and/or misguided priorities should always be countered with common sense and concern for the common good.

For the most part--there are always exceptions--people who prosper demand clean water, air, soil and aesthetic beauty. The more prosperous they become, the more they insist on it. They despise the selfish few who intentionally mess with that and prosecute them when they can catch them. All developed societies did their share of serious pollution while they utilitized their natural resources and developed technologies that made them prosperous. Now they use technology, knowledge, and their prosperity to clean up most of the messes.

People who do not prosper appreciate clean water, air, soil, and aesthetic beauty no less, but food, clothing, and shelter--just staying alive--take priority. They tolerate open sewage and filth and ugliness and a poisoned environment because they have no means to change it. When such people have the incentive and ability to become prosperous, they too will demand clean air, water, and soil and will clean up their messes.

As the body of evidence grows debunking AGW, I think it ever more imperative to oppose needless policies and regulations that would prevent the poor from becoming prosperous.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, We're sure you are "passionate" about many things. However, I'm having difficulty with your statement

Quote:

As the body of evidence grows debunking AGW, I think it ever more imperative to oppose needless policies and regulations that would prevent the poor from becoming prosperous.

Will you please clarify? It's because no matter how stringent or weak AGW "needless policies" are, how does that prevent the poor from becoming prosperous?

1 Reply

Im beginning to see a pattern here. Several people are posting over otheres when, it appears that there are a number of us who are questioning the "settled science" regarding Global Warming and its caues.
I began doubting the data when several of my professiuonal organizations came out with articles that said:
"Now that it is no longer doubted that humans are the principal cause of global warming"...
I wonderd who was responsible for the policy statements taht came out of the AGU or everal others AAUP, AEG etc.
When the "cause and effect" relationship between the major greenhouse gases and the climate models predicting GW were being calibrated, it becasme obvious that CO2 was selected as "The greenhouse gas or major concern". Yet noone had doe any rigorous study as to whether CO2 was , indeed preceeding the effects measurable. Even with the recent climate change spikes, we seem to be inventing this cause and effect relationship. Im a bit too skeptical about its veracity.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

the human brain is too small to apply cause and effect to complex systems such as economics and earth sciences, we will never get the clarity that many expect. However, it is clear that we are nearing the current people carrying capacity of earth, and there is good reason to think that the disruptions caused by climate change will decrease the carrying capacity. We do know that we need to learn to live on less, and we do know that our consumption and pollution patterns are morally reprehensible for sure and ecologically dangerous most likely. Our path forward is clear regardless of what proof we have or don't have about the damage we have done to earth to date.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the human brain is too small to apply cause and effect to complex systems such as economics and earth sciences, we will never get the clarity that many expect.

Speak for yourself...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie, We're sure you are "passionate" about many things. However, I'm having difficulty with your statement
Quote:
As the body of evidence grows debunking AGW, I think it ever more imperative to oppose needless policies and regulations that would prevent the poor from becoming prosperous.

Will you please clarify? It's because no matter how stringent or weak AGW "needless policies" are, how does that prevent the poor from becoming prosperous?

ALL the rest of us became prosperous by exploiting our own natural resources and building an economy using commerce and industry that pollutes. Once we became prosperous, we then had the luxury and wherewithal to address sources of pollution and eliminate most of them. The modern automobile, for instance, produces a teensy fraction of polluting emissions that my first car many decades ago emitted. And the factories producing the components of the cars today as well as the cars themselves are equipped with scrubbers and other controls that protects the environment as much as possible. That also was not the case when my first car was built.

For the already developed world to now implement ill advised policies to combat global warming that we may have no ability to affect in any way, will likely make it difficult or impossible for developing countries to utilize, export, or effectively exploit their own resources. And that will doom them to more generations of crushing poverty.

Coal, for instance, is one of the most plentiful, cheapest, easiest to utilize, and energy efficient substances on Earth. We used it plenty to get from where we started to where we are now. How can we in good conscience deny other nations the same ability unless the use of coal for the short term will destroy the planet?

That has to be included in the debate.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Speak for yourself...

it is not about me.....the corporate class and the economists ran around claiming that they knew what was going on with the economy, that world trade was the way to go, that getting the primitive people to become modern consumers (and polluters) was the way to go, that depressions could never happen anymore because they had fixed what causes them. It was all hogwash. They claimed that they understood the economy, probably many even believed that they did, but they did not. It is only with the failure of their program that they have been confronted with this truth. Now that we are trying to fix the economic problem we find out that none of these experts agree upon how to go about it, because they all have different opinions on what the major problems are as well as what solutions would work. We are at about the same place with climate change, the same non agreement with the experts on how to go about keeping the earths carrying capacity as high as it is now. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. At least I am smart enough to know that I don't know....the same can't be said for you.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Speak for yourself...

it is not about me.....the corporate class and the ecomomist ran around claiming that they knew what was going on with the economy, that world trade was the way to go, that depressions could never happen anymore because they had fixed what causes them. It was hogwash. They claimed that they understood the economy, probably many even believed that they did, but they did not. It is only with the failure of their program that they have been confronted with this truth. Now that we are trying to fix the economic problem we find out that none of these experts agree upon how to go about it, becuase they all have different opinions on what the major problems are as well as what solutions would work. We are at about the same place with climate change, the same non agreement with the experts on how to go about keeping the earths carrying capacity as high as it is now. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. At least I am smart enough to know that I don't know....the same can't be said for you.

I think the human brain is more powerful than you seem to, but I can understand why you would feel that way, what with the personal experience you've had with yours.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I think the human brain is more powerful than you seem to, but I can understand why you would feel that way, what with the personal experience you've had with yours

you don't know me...again you show that can't separate what you know from what you think that you know.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I think the human brain is more powerful than you seem to, but I can understand why you would feel that way, what with the personal experience you've had with yours

you don't know me...again you show that can't separate what you know from what you think that you know.

I am merely applying the scientific method, and putting forth theories based upon the available data - your postings. And they do seem to support my theory. Perhaps you could change my opinion by improving the quality of your discourse.

You're sort of like the right-wingers who claim Government doesn't work, and then when elected, prove it...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

it is not about me.....the corporate class and the economists ran around claiming that they knew what was going on with the economy, that world trade was the way to go, that getting the primitive people to become modern consumers (and polluters) was the way to go, that depressions could never happen anymore because they had fixed what causes them. It was all hogwash. They claimed that they understood the economy, probably many even believed that they did, but they did not. It is only with the failure of their program that they have been confronted with this truth. Now that we are trying to fix the economic problem we find out that none of these experts agree upon how to go about it, because they all have different opinions on what the major problems are as well as what solutions would work. We are at about the same place with climate change, the same non agreement with the experts on how to go about keeping the earths carrying capacity as high as it is now. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. At least I am smart enough to know that I don't know....the same can't be said for you.

While I can sympathize with your frustrations, I do believe you are confounding disparate elements here and perhaps seeing conspiracy where none exists.

The primitive peoples to which you referred in fact eagerly embraced modern consumerism as soon as they had the chance - it wasn't forced on them by a corporate class or an economist either.

I don't think many serious economists ever believed we had eliminated the possibility of depressions, economic bubbles, or associated liquidity crises. Indeed these are known to be hard-to-predict but lasting features of capitalism. True there were some complacent few who thought they had found the formula, just as today we see others equally as sure they can impose a new, better economic model on the rest of us.

The enemy here are the authoritarian types who would impose their favored solutions on the rest of us; whether it is a Leninist creation of a "new socialist man"; the architect of a "new Deal"; a contemporary advocate of forced economic redistribution and class warfare; or even an idiot self-proclaimed savant like Al Gore who presumes to tell everyone how to live in pursuit of his own rather juvenile fantasies about AGW.

The degree to which humanity is susceptible to the inducements of these charlatins is a depressing thing, but history confirms it at every turn.

Skepticism, and a preferance for freedom and individual choice are the hallmarks of a rational person.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

it is not about me.....the corporate class and the economists ran around claiming that they knew what was going on with the economy, that world trade was the way to go, that getting the primitive people to become modern consumers (and polluters) was the way to go, that depressions could never happen anymore because they had fixed what causes them. It was all hogwash. They claimed that they understood the economy, probably many even believed that they did, but they did not. It is only with the failure of their program that they have been confronted with this truth. Now that we are trying to fix the economic problem we find out that none of these experts agree upon how to go about it, because they all have different opinions on what the major problems are as well as what solutions would work. We are at about the same place with climate change, the same non agreement with the experts on how to go about keeping the earths carrying capacity as high as it is now. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. At least I am smart enough to know that I don't know....the same can't be said for you.

While I can sympathize with your frustrations here, I do believe you are confounding disparate elements here and perhaps seeing conspiracy where none exists.

The primitive peoples to which you referred eagerly embraced modern consumerism as soon as they had the chance - it wasn't forced on them by a corporate class or an economist either.

I don't think many serious economists believed we had eliminated the possibility of depressions, economic bubbles, or associated liquidity crises. Indeed these are known to be hard-to-predict but lasting features of capitalism. True there were some complacent few who thought they had found the formula, just as today we see others equally as sure they can impose a new, better economic model on the rest of us.

The enemy here are the authoritarian types who would impose their favored solutions on the rest of us; whether it is a Leninist creation of a "new socialist man"; a contemporary advocate of forced economic redistribution and class warfare; or even an idiot self-proclaimed savant like Al Gore who presumes to tell everyone how to live in pursuit of his own rather juvenile fantasies about AGW.

Skepticism, and a preferance for freedom and individual choice are the hallmarks of a rational person.

This is a good post even though I don't agree with the characterization of some of the arguments within.

I would state, that it is prudent - and Conservative - to assume that we have the capability to do damage to our environment, and therefore we should be cautious when it comes to programs and activities which have an effect on it.

I would further note that the actions of some affect the environment to the benefit of a small group, whereas the environment is a shared resource of the whole. I've always been much less concerned about Global Warming than I am about pollution, and it's unsupportable to claim that the ability to damage a shared resource represents anything less than a loss of personal liberty for all who do not directly benefit from that utilization of the resources.

I do not believe that our environmental problems and questions cannot be solved, and that our brains aren't up to the task. We just haven't been at it very long and need more time and study.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Skepticism, and a preferance for freedom and individual choice are the hallmarks of a rational person

skeptics of the convential wisdom where suppressed when it came to economic matters, and the skeptics did not fight to be heard. It has been different with ecology matters, as the coporate class generally looks at wins at saving the planet as a loss for them, though they should not because as Gore and others have pointed out Green will become a whole new industry with profit potential. Becuase the corporate class does not see this they have funded the global warming skeptics.

there is a healthy level of skepticism, of desire for freedom, and of level of choice, however as with anything they can be overdone and become unhealthy and unhelpful

0 Replies

If humans were to completely cease all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, does anyone seriously think that the planet won't do exactly what it's done every time before for the past 500k years?

This is like a roller coaster being dragged to the top of the hill by a powerful motor, while there's a little guy pushing it from behind, and everyone is arguing about whether the little guy should stop pushing.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

humans can't cease green house gas creation, there are far too many of us, we don't have the global governance that could make it happen, we don't have the technology to do it, and we don't have the psychological strength to do it (we are far too spoiled).

We do however have the moral obligation to try.

0 Replies

Wny? Why do we have a moral obligation to try to stop something if that something is not harming anything?

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know