# Year of Global Cooling



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...0071219/COMMENTARY/10575140/-1/RSS_COMMENTARY In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained 





> &#8220;global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.&#8221;


 In other words, *all weather variations are evidence for global warming.*


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.


----------



## tellner (Dec 19, 2007)

Not exactly. The most noticeable early effect of global warming is increased *variability* and *unpredictability* in the weather. It's not a simple case of everyone suddenly throwing away their long johns. As air and ocean currents change warm and cold air will shift out of the patterns we've grown used to. There will be more in some places and less in others. There will be less cool air and water overall, but there will still be plenty. 

Look, the evidence is irrefutable unless you want to cherry pick, distort and ignore because you just don't want to hear it. The Earth is getting warmer. It's been doing it since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It's strongly correlated with atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide and NOX levels. The rate of change is accelerating. We have multiple sources of unrelated data from direct temperature records and ice-cores to measurements of the Earth's albedo, permafrost melting, worldwide glacier retreat, plant population succession, changes in the wine industry and on and on and monotonously on.

We've been over it. Your response has been "It can't be true because I don't want it to be true." Even the overpaid whores of the oil companies admit that it's getting warmer and doing so quickly. They've progressed to "It's not our fault" and "There isn't anything we can do about it".

It's not about Al Gore, and I really don't understand why you have such a fetish about him. It's not about the danged librul commies who want to steal our precious bodily fluids. It's a well-established fact that simply has to be addressed.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 19, 2007)

My understanding is that global warming predicts more extreme's in weather, more and stronger storms, more flooding, more droughts, basically a destabalization of the climate, combined with a fairly small increase in global averages.  0.7 C so far I believe.  

That's not a lot, not enough that we would notice a big difference in temperature.  I'm also not sure if extreme weather includes colder winters (plus warmer summers).  But regardless, that's a 0.7 C average world wide, a cold winter hardly dissproves global warming.

However more storms we definately do seem to have, seems like every second night there is a thunderstorm here in the summer, 5 years ago that was certainely not the case.  Of course that is a localized issue and can't demonstrate anything without looking at the bigger picture, same as a cold winter.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
> Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.


 
Are we going to do this again?  Don't we already have a 10 page thread that started out with something almost exactly identical?

Don't go to activists to get science, that said, the Greenpeace activist was correct.  In large chaotic systems, localized effects can be quite different than the overall average.  The writer of that article was doing exactly the same thing, cherry picking localized events to support his statements.  To give an opposite example, I'm in year 8 of drought, and our Wyoming June temps were 4-5 degrees higher than the thirty year average.

Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face. Name one fact that is proved by absolutely everything else and is incapable of being disproved. The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.
Did I mention Gore here? Why do you feel compelled to defend him? If he *walked the walk* instead of just *talking the talk*, his name might still be inextricably linked with global warming, but, at least he wouldn't be hypocritical, and a man who has the courage to stand for his convictions I can respect, one who doesn't practice what he preaches is nothing more than a carnival barker at a freak show.
You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 19, 2007)

It's a matter of taking things out of context, no where did he say that this proved global warming.  Nor is a greenpeace activist even scientist.  

Your logic of stopping a storm vs altering weather patterns is also flawed.  We can alter things fairly directly.  We have redirected rivers, drained lakes, irrigated deserts.  These are massive projects that take a lot of time to do, global warming is even larger and has occured on a larger scale.

It's like building a skyscrapper, it takes time, work and a lot more time.  We can do it though.  But if one suddenly decides to fall over, not a lot we can do to stop it once it's falling.  So I guess by the same logic it most be impossible for us to build one?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face.


 
Don, ALL variations in weather do not PROVE global warming.  However, the collective patterns of more extreme weather, and weather that is odd in areas compared to past patterns, whether this means warmer or cooler or more violent, or whatever, is a strong indicator that something is seriously out of whack.  You cannot look at it on a microscale and draw conclusions from it.  Rather, scientists are looking at the overall patterns across the globe and seeing some very disturbing trends in our global weather patterns.  That is the proof of global warming.



> The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.


 
this is really irrelevant and nonsensical in the global warming dialogue...



> You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?


 
It is always much much much much easier to destroy than to create.  Take the simple act of cutting down a tree with an axe.  In a few minutes I can cut down what may have taken decades or longer to grow.

The arrogance lies not in believing we can alter worldwide patterns, but rather in believing we can continue with a cultural lifestyle of excess and waste, and never run into trouble for it.  We are a greedy society, and we have caused some serious problems for ourselves and our descendants.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face. Name one fact that is proved by absolutely everything else and is incapable of being disproved. The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.


 
Actually the original quote doesn't say "prove" is says "can."  



> You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?


 
Read up on "desertification," we can absolutely destroy what we lack the power to create.

Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

I find it interesting that any attempt to debate global warming's existence is as popular as a whore in church. I am told over and over that the debate is over, when I see articles like the one in the OP and this one:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908


> Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (&#8216;fingerprints&#8217 over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is &#8216;unstoppable&#8217; and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
> 
> These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)


Gee, that couldn't be because all those employed by the IPCC would lose thier jobs were global warming not reversible, inalterable, or not the fault of capitalism? No, no one ever skews to protect their paychecks. Never.
Of course statistics like:


> ** Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
> 
> * Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
> 
> ...


 Don't help either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> I find it interesting that any attempt to debate global warming's existence is as popular as a whore in church. I am told over and over that the debate is over, when I see articles like the one in the OP and this one:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
> 
> Gee, that couldn't be because all those employed by the IPCC would lose thier jobs were global warming not reversible, inalterable, or not the fault of capitalism? No, no one ever skews to protect their paychecks. Never.


 
Well Don, it's pretty clear from the various threads on Global Warming that your mind is made up.  I sincerely hope you are right, because the fallout of Global Warming promises to be pretty bleak in many ways.  While I say that I hope you are right, I am deeply afraid that you are wrong.  

In the meantime, whether or not you believe in global warming, I hope you will embrace a habit of moderation in your own use of the Earth's resources and in your own contribution to pollution.  That much is inarguable, we all should do what we can to reduce pollution and energy consumption.


----------



## tellner (Dec 19, 2007)

Ah, we've gotten to "You don't believe me because you're morally defective. Any evidence that contradicts what I want to believe comes from lying whores."

Sorry Don, it's just not possible to have a rational discussion with you on this issue. You won't consider any evidence that doesn't utterly support what you want to be true. You are hostile to science as a concept and don't seem to understand how it's done.

Any discussion with you under the circumstances is rootless, bootless and bound to be fruitless. So I will not bother until such time as you are a bit better educated about the fundamentals of the scientific method, and the objective nature of physical reality.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2007)

And, he keeps linking to the same article, reported from different web pages, as if they are new and different articles. It's the same David H Douglass, Fred Singer report that he linked to last week.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 20, 2007)

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 
These four hundred are all oil company hacks?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
> These four hundred are all oil company hacks?



Sounds more like they are disagreeing with the effects this will have, and some the significance of it, but not that it is happening.

And what was the float earth stuff doing in there?  Seems rather irrelevant.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
> These four hundred are all oil company hacks?


 

Perhaps not all, but if one follows the money....

for example, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes:

No published research in last 15 years
Tennekes is a retired researcher from the Netherlands that, according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990. Prior to 1990, Tennekes has published research mainly in the area of meteorology. 

Tenekes and Dr. S. Fred Singer
Tennekes has written numerous articles for Dr. S Fred Singer's organization called the "Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The SEPP and Fred Singer have a long history of attacking the science of global warming. Fred Singer has been connected to organizations that were involved in denying the link between second-hand tobacco smoke and he has also received funding from oil companies. 

Seen  here


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
> Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.


 
Dry where it use to be wet
Cooler where it use to be warm
Warm where it use to be cool
Wet where it use to be dry (particularly places like Florida that will be underwater)

It does not mean the entire surface of the globe will get warmer it does mean the average temperature of the globe will be higher and that there will be fewer cooler places. 

The planet is a very complex system and what global warming is doing is changing weather patterns and making is warmer in bad areas. In other words a whole lot of ice is melting and putting a WHOLE lot of fresh water into the ocean. This will disrupt the oceanic conveyor belt system, actually it will shut it down, and that system is responsible for warmer temperatures in many areas and cooler temperatures in others. This means those areas change DRASTICALLY and this effects a whole lot of stuff. 

I would go into much greater detail if I thought it were worth it and if I had the time but I doubt it would change anyone&#8217;s mind so I will not.

Earth Science and Climatology were a long time ago for me and I would need to go back and read a few textbooks but those that are posting saying Global warming is a farce would not change their minds one bit so why bother.


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> The most noticeable early effect of global warming is increased *variability* and *unpredictability* in the weather.


I must be missing the accurate weather forecast channel.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 21, 2007)

Idiocy like this makes it really hard to take global warming seriously.


----------



## fireman00 (Dec 21, 2007)

Not sure who has seen this: "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. "

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

I'm still waiting to hear Al Gore explain what caused the mini ice-age from ~ 10,000 years ago ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Idiocy like this makes it really hard to take global warming seriously.


 

well, perhaps the way he expressed this comes off as silly, but I think his point is very valid: we all need to examine our habits and move away from things that are blatanly wasteful.  Driving specialized vehicles without good reason, if those vehicles are gas hogs, is not a good thing.  They contribute to pollution and exacerbate the situation.  I think everyone needs to look for ways to pollute less in their lives.  

And just because the way this guy expressed himself may have seemed goofy, doesn't negate global warming.  Silliness abounds everywhere in all aspects of life.  But that fact does not make the problems go away.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 21, 2007)

fireman00 said:


> I'm still waiting to hear Al Gore explain what caused the mini ice-age from ~ 10,000 years ago ...




It was him, he drew in too much solar power while inventing the internet, this massive use of solar energy caused less solar energy to by used for keeping the earth warm, leading to a ice age.

Seriously though, why would Al Gore, a politician and a activist, be expected to explain these things.  That is for scientists to do, he might be able to try and 2nd hand it from them, but he is not a scientist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 21, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, perhaps the way he expressed this comes off as silly, but I think his point is very valid: we all need to examine our habits and move away from things that are blatanly wasteful. Driving specialized vehicles without good reason, if those vehicles are gas hogs, is not a good thing. They contribute to pollution and exacerbate the situation. I think everyone needs to look for ways to pollute less in their lives.
> 
> And just because the way this guy expressed himself may have seemed goofy, doesn't negate global warming. Silliness abounds everywhere in all aspects of life. But that fact does not make the problems go away.


 
You mean I should not drive my Hummer to the corner store and around the city as an "Urban" SUV :uhyeah:

Actually I feel the term "Urban" SUV is pretty Damn silly but it is what most are used for these days. 

And I agree with what you are saying


----------



## fireman00 (Dec 21, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> It was him, he drew in too much solar power while inventing the internet, this massive use of solar energy caused less solar energy to by used for keeping the earth warm, leading to a ice age.
> 
> Seriously though, why would Al Gore, a politician and a activist, be expected to explain these things. That is for scientists to do, he might be able to try and 2nd hand it from them, but he is not a scientist.


 
but didn't he invent the Internet? :>

Read what the report says in the link in my first reply.... he's been spearheading a movement based on skewed information.... moving towards carbon neutral is a GREAT thing but do it with logic and hard facts.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 21, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, perhaps the way he expressed this comes off as silly, but I think his point is very valid: we all need to examine our habits and move away from things that are blatanly wasteful.  Driving specialized vehicles without good reason, if those vehicles are gas hogs, is not a good thing.  They contribute to pollution and exacerbate the situation.  I think everyone needs to look for ways to pollute less in their lives.



Its a shame, I think, that this kind of thinking is just beyond so many in our culture.  Its just a foreign idea to so many, and its such a fundamental truth that it seems almost impossible to try to explain.

Global warming or not, this truth still stands on its own.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Its a shame, I think, that this kind of thinking is just beyond so many in our culture. Its just a foreign idea to so many, and its such a fundamental truth that it seems almost impossible to try to explain.
> 
> Global warming or not, this truth still stands on its own.


 

That's how I see it.  We have become accustomed to a rediculously high standard of living, and quite frankly it has turned us into spoiled brats as a culture.  It is often very difficult for people to even consider giving up something that they have decided is their god-given right to waste and abuse.

It pops up in little ways as well.  I spoke with a physical trainer in the gym where I have a membership.  He was telling me about a member who would walk into the grooming area, turn on the water faucet, then walk away for several minutes before he was ready to come back and shave, or do whatever he needed to do.  The trainer turned off the water and asked the guy why he kept doing this.  The guys response was that he paid for his membership, so he should be able to do whatever he wants and nobody should question him about it.  It's a really weird entitlement mentality.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Big Don said:


> U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
> These four hundred are all oil company hacks?


 
Having looked at the sponsor of this report, and finding it to be Senator Inhofe, I knew it could and should be dismissed. Senator Inhofe has an agenda he is pushing, and really it seems silly to follow a report that is an attempt to justify Senator Crazy as Nero's Horse.

But, I did just find this rebuttal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/inhofe-recycles-unscienti_b_77945.html

In which, we learn that Ray Kurzwiel is one of the prominant Scientists who disputes ~ well, sort of ~ the science. Of course, Kurzwiel builds musical synthesizers. I wonder how that makes him a prominent scientist for climate issues.

Kurzwiel ... you have to love it. 

Oh, and apparently, Mr. Synthesizer doesn't dispute the effects of humans on the atmosphere, but rather thinks we will be able to solve the problem before it becomes a catastrophe.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Having looked at the sponsor of this report, and finding it to be Senator Inhofe, I knew it could and should be dismissed. Senator Inhofe has an agenda he is pushing, and really it seems silly to follow a report that is an attempt to justify Senator Crazy as Nero's Horse.


What's the opposite of an appeal to authority?  If one can't use an authority on a subject to justify an opinion, then one can't dismiss an arguement by someone who has an opinion different than yours as nutzo.  I speak too soon, perhaps you are doctor and have diagnosed the guy?

Otherwise I could just use the cop out that "you {might} have an agenda to push."


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray, Of course I have an agenda to push. I am very biased. I make no bones about it. I have opinions, and I hold them strongly. I am not trying to play a neutral part on anything I post about. 

If I was neutral ... I wouldn't say anything. 

However Senator Inhofe's record speaks for itself. Go research him and his positions. He is at the outer edge of the bell curve. I have no problem with that ... but let us recognize it for what it is. 

I do not believe that every argument breaks down to a "on the one hand, on the other hand" discussion. The media has stopped reporting FACTS and moved to this two ends of the see-saw discussion. Which, sadly, spreads disinformation and keeps people uninformed. 

Oh, and incidentally, my opinion and agenda is the people learn to reason and apply reason to questions and problems.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Oh, and incidentally, my opinion and agenda is the people learn to reason and apply reason to questions and problems.


And if they come up with different answers than you, that's okay?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2007)

I get it, no one can dispute global warming, ever. No matter how many scientists do, they are only in it for the money, etc. Gee...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> And if they come up with different answers than you, that's okay?


Surely, you must be joking. Only oil company stooges would dare dispute global warming.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> And if they come up with different answers than you, that's okay?


 
If they are using reason. Of course.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Big Don said:


> I get it, no one can dispute global warming, ever. No matter how many scientists do, they are only in it for the money, etc. Gee...


 
It is apparent that you can not discern between who is a scientist, and who is not. 

Further, the report from Senator Inhofe references many people who are not scientists, or if they are scientists, they are not scientists in the field upon the topic being discussed. They are due consideration in measure equal to their knowledge in the field. 

Ray Kurzwiel invents synthesizers. Why should we consider anything he has to say on weather more relevant than you or I? He's just a knucklehead with a known name. 

To call him a "prominent scientist" is an absolute lie.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It is apparent that you can not discern between who is a scientist, and who is not.
> 
> Further, the report from Senator Inhofe references many people who are not scientists, or if they are scientists, they are not scientists in the field upon the topic being discussed. They are due consideration in measure equal to their knowledge in the field.


You told me appeals to authorities was a incorrectly reasoned arguement; therefore invalid.  You can't make up the rules and then change them just because your position is shakey.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> You told me appeals to authorities was a incorrectly reasoned arguement; therefore invalid. You can't make up the rules and then change them just because your position is shakey.


 
I guess I have no idea what you are saying Ray. 

What is it that you think I am changing? 

And, the rules of logic are not something that I made up.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I guess I have no idea what you are saying Ray.
> 
> What is it that you think I am changing?
> 
> And, the rules of logic are not something that I made up.


You are relying on appeals to authority to make your case.  You are not following the rules of the game that you play.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> You are relying on appeals to authority to make your case. You are not following the rules of the game that you play.



To whom do you think I am appealing my argument?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 22, 2007)

Rather than "Appeal to Authority", the biggest fallacy in most discussions here is the Genetic Fallacy.  Whether Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh or thinkprogress.org or foxnews.com, the bearer of the message becomes the validation of the message, or not.

Everyone bearing a message has a bias in why they think that message is worth propgating, but that does not make the message itself true or not.  The knowledge of the bias is important in maintaining a healthy skepticism, but that should ne be the deciding factor in determining truth or false.

Because the bias works both ways .  If you are skeptical of what Al Gore says because it *is* Al Gore, then you should be skeptical of Sean Hannity for the same reason.  And if a quote from Rush Limbaugh is discounted because it is Rush Limbaugh, then an Al Franken quote should be discounted because it *is* Al Franken.

Or you can look past the source of the message to the content of the message  And maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but not because you are getting it from a source that just happens to agree or disagree with your own biases

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2007)

Far too many of the proponents of global warming have vested interests in ensuring governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legislations, and/or are involved in businesses that profit from scaring people about global warming.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 22, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Far too many of the proponents of global warming have vested interests in ensuring governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legislations, and/or are involved in businesses that profit from scaring people about global warming.


 
So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations?  Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets?  and how much do you feel they have to gain from it?  Who gets rich off it?

From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 22, 2007)

Is ice melting in artic regions and glacial areas faster than it was say 10 years ago?

Have there been any weather pattern changes?

Are there greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was say 10 years ago?

If not then what is all teh hubbub about.

If so...why?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 22, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations?  Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets?  and how much do you feel they have to gain from it?  Who gets rich off it?



Well if you are a proponent of policy change and the policy does indeed change in your favor than you gain an enormous influence in the direction of that policy, which is influence and power which is an asset of it's own, not to mention that you will get paid well to consult and advise on that new policy.

See 'ethanol fuel' as an example of people who have made a lot of money for 'environmentalism' of negligible real value. 



> From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.



True to a point.  Some big industries will be indifferent.  Auto makers will need to invest in new propulsion technologies but also make a lot of money during the transition as everybody has to exchange their gas guzzlers for.. something else.  New energy means new infrastructure and those with experience in distribution could stand to make a lot of money if they can get in early on the  development of that new infrastructure.  Some companies in big industry could lose a *lot* of money; some could make a *lot more* money if they position themselves right.

It's not as simple as 'environmentalists are doing it for altruistic reasons and industry opposes it for greed'  A lot of both on both sides


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> And if they come up with different answers than you, that's okay?





Flying Crane said:


> So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations?  Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets?  and how much do you feel they have to gain from it?  Who gets rich off it?
> 
> From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.


People who work for the UN's IPCC would enjoy, and profit from, job security.
Umm, btw, when was the last time the UN was right about something BIG? 
OH, that's right... NEVER...
Companies that sell carbon credits didn't even exist ten years ago... but, they sure are profiting from something...
Oh, and the OIL companies, they surely aren't giving jet fuel away...

Oil companies are the bogeymen of the age. Automobile companies will always make money, even if all they made were non-hybrid electrics, you know why? It beats walking.
I don't know that anyone has yet gotten rich from global warming fears, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
Who? Lots of people, does _The Day After Tomorrow_ ring a bell? That was not a charitable endeavor, nor, are many of the books, DVD's etc about the "crisis" of global warming


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 22, 2007)

Rant ahead:soapbox:

OK I have about had it AGAIN:flammad: in a thread on Global whatever you want to call it.And I don't know why I am even posting because likely it will make NO difference:hb:

People are arguing politics and business and the only SCIENCE being discussed at all is how many scientists does it take to declare it real or fake.

Sorry but it makes one heck of a lot more sense to me to look and the FACTS not argue if it is real or whose fault it is.

Is the planet warmer in areas that were previously colder? YES  a WHOLE lot of ice is melting

Is this going to have an effect on every single creature on the planet? YES  and before it is brought up that it is the cows fault, sheeps fault a snow leopard names Murrays fault, not one of them can do a thing to make it better.

Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks

Does Al Gore Matter at all? NO  Al is a politician and film maker NOT a scientist and has done NO research himself into what is going on, he has asked those that have and although there are many truisms in his little film it is also sensationalized in areas to MAKE MONEY.

If my next door neighbor buys or sells his/her Hummer is it going to make a whip of difference? At this point NO  1 less Hummer will make no difference and it sure aint likely that all the Hummer owners are going to turn them all in for a Prius. And the fact is some of them do actually NEED them. A Prius is no good in a blizzard and no good on a logging trail, sorry. And there will ALWAYS be a need for heavy equipment and rather large trucks so again it would be better to figure out how to make those MUCH more efficient instead of pointing the fickle finger of fault at any one of them.

For crying out loud why not figure out what is causing it and then figure out if we can fix it. If we cant start getting vaccines for a whole lot of tropical diseases for areas that were previously to cold for them and figure out where your going to grow food that was once grown in areas that were perfect for growing food that will be to dry, to cold, to wet, or really to wet because they are UNDER WATER.
:disgust:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Umm, btw, when was the last time the UN was right about something BIG?
> OH, that's right... NEVER...


 
One could look to Mohammed el Baradai's statements about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems to me that the IAEA was much more correct about that than, oh, the Entire Administration of George W. Bush. 

How many Billions of Dollars a month would it take before that was "BIG"? 

http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 22, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Rant ahead:soapbox:
> 
> OK I have about had it AGAIN:flammad: in a thread on Global whatever you want to call it.And I don't know why I am even posting because likely it will make NO difference:hb:
> 
> ...


 

yup, this is really the meat of it all.  None of the rest of this nonsensical back-and-forth means anything.  The evidence for global warming is huge.  Vast industries stand to make huge piles of money if global warming is ignored.  other industries stand to make money if policies are enacted to fight global warming.  Still others stand to make money either way.  I guess I was trying to understand the thought process of those who want to discredit global warming because some individuals happen to be hypocritical or greedy, or whatever.  Either way, it doesn't make global warming go away.  It's very very real folks.  The clock is ticking.  Maybe we can still do something to head it off before it becomes truly catastrophic.  Maybe it's already too late.  I'm in favor of giving it a try.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> It's very very real folks. The clock is ticking. Maybe we can still do something to head it off before it becomes truly catastrophic. Maybe it's already too late.


Malthius predicated a catastrophie, The US gov't made us (old people) climb under our desks and cover our heads in preparation for Soviet nukes, The hole in the ozone layer was going to kill me, red meat is going to kill me, the US economy will be destroyed if a (democrate/republican/other - pick one) gets in office, I have a heel spur and a messed up rotor-cuff, my hair is falling out, hair grows in the darndest places, I can't read without reading glasses....

And now I gotta worry that Iowa is going to turn into a tropical paradise during the winter?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2007)

I'm sorry, Ray, I thought you accused me of appealing to a higher authority. I know I asked to whom you thought I was appealing. But I seem to have missed your answer. 

Can you shed some light?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm sorry, Ray, I thought you accused me of appealing to a higher authority. I know I asked to whom you thought I was appealing. But I seem to have missed your answer.
> 
> Can you shed some light?


While I can't answer for Ray, it sure looks like you appeal to the (somewhat tenuous) authority of the scientists whose opinions and positions you agree with while completely discounting any other scientist's opinions


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> While I can't answer for Ray, it sure looks like you appeal to the (somewhat tenuous) authority of the scientists whose opinions and positions you agree with while completely discounting any other scientist's opinions


 
Big Don, we have seen, now, that you know how to use the quote system. Please find the argument on this thread where I appeal to an authority, quote it, and display it. 

These fuzzy, ill-defined ideas that you hint at do not make for a clear discussion. 

Can you please find one authority, one opinion or one scientist in this thread, whose opinion I agree with, whom I have sited as an authority and whose opinion agrees with my own, which I then suggested that you should accept my opinion because of his.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Big Don, we have seen, now, that you know how to use the quote system. Please find the argument on this thread where I appeal to an authority, quote it, and display it.
> 
> These fuzzy, ill-defined ideas that you hint at do not make for a clear discussion.
> 
> Can you please find one authority, one opinion or one scientist in this thread, whose opinion I agree with, whom I have sited as an authority and whose opinion agrees with my own, which I then suggested that you should accept my opinion because of his.


How about here:


> Having looked at the sponsor of this report, and finding it to be Senator Inhofe, I knew it could and should be dismissed. Senator Inhofe has an agenda he is pushing, and really it seems silly to follow a report that is an attempt to justify Senator Crazy as Nero's Horse.
> 
> But, I did just find this rebuttal.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph...i_b_77945.html


 In which you discount a report of 400 scientists and slander a US Senator, because they don't share the belief you do, then you appeal to the authority  of a blogger on the Huffington Post, a place that is PROUD to be biased...
Or here:


> If they are using reason. Of course.


 Wherein you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't using reason.
Or in this post from a previous thread where you imply the source of funding makes science suspect, if the science disagrees with your worldview: 





> Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.
> 
> Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
> Show me who is funding their research.
> ...


 But, you ARE willing to believe a list of people whose continued employment is tied directly to fear of global warming...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 23, 2007)

Those 400 are a small minority compared to those that say it is a problem...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 23, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Those 400 are a small minority compared to those that say it is a problem...


 

And, as I said in  this post , there's evidence that some of them are less than credible....


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_
Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks_

Actually, I believe it does.  If you don't know whose 'fault' it is ,then you really don't know what's causing it.  If you don't know what's causing it then you don't know why it's happening.  If you don't know why it's happening then you really don't know how to change it.

... and attempting to change it without really understanding the cause can be maybe helpful, maybe useless, maybe harmful.


Science wants to be predictive.  "Under these conditions, this happens" F=ma.  Change the input quantitatively and you get an output that you can figure out ahead of time.  Unfortunately,  it isn't always that way.  There's a lot we don't know, and a lot we do know but don't have the computational power to do much about.  Predicting earthquakes and tornados and snowfall two weeks from now.  Too many variables or not enough data to build a predictive model with much accuracy or confidence. Medicine is a good example.  We know how many PSI it will take to break a human bone, yet we make guesses on colds.

So, like a detective, we gather empirical evidence when we can, and make hunches from the coincidental evidence.  Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong.

But sometimes we don't know the difference.  By 'we' I mean all of us on the outside looking at scientists making declarations.  Are they making a quantitative prediction, like the time of the next lunar eclipse?  Or an educated guess base on circumstantial evidence and experience like next weekends weather?  Most of us don't have the background or experience to always know the difference.  And there are many who don't care and for their own motives will sell a hunch as a fact and a guess as a mathematical proof.  That really doesn't help anyone in deciding policy and direction.

I admit that from what I've seen, I don't see the climatology around global warning is really at a place where deductions can be made.  We can be at the point of saying "this has been happening for a hundred years and that has been also happening for a hundred years, therefore we believe they are connected, and therefore if this continues to happen, that will also continue to happen".  We are not yet at the point of saying "this many tons of that material leads to these many degrees of change" or rate slopes plotted over time. We don't have qualitative equations with predictive power yet.

Which means we don't have equations yet that tell us what we can change, what we can't change, and how to go about it.  Which is where we run into the "might as well do something, anything would help" issue.

If we don't have a quantitative cause-effect equation, then you don't know if you are, we are all doing enough.  We all cut our 'carbon footprint' in half and we think "at least we've done something" but all we may have done is jiggled the needle a bit to stretch our extinction out by a decade, or a generation, or... who knows?  So maybe my great-grandchild dies of old age but my great-great-grandchild does not and my great-great-great-grandchild  is never born, but last week, someone bought a hybrid SUV and felt like they had done something but they did not do *nearly* enough.  Or we missed something in our circumstantial correlation, and it turns out that changing from oil burning cars to electric cars really didn't change the situation; not enough to change the outcome.  So doing something... did nothing.  Which is why I compare 'carbon credits' to "I pay you not to piss in the lake, so I can piss in the lake... well how much piss in the lake is still safe for both of us to drink?"

Whatever we do will cost, I don't mean the extra cost of an electric car for a family of four.  I'm talking about a third-world country that can't become a first world country because they can't afford the 'clean tech' to upgrade their energy infrastructures so their people struggle on without the basic infrastructure we take for granted.  Lotta jobs, lotta lives will be affected negatively and permanently as we fight to save the planet.  We'd better be sure we are right.  We'd better be sure that we who are saying "sacrifices must be made" are willing to do little more that just lowering the temperature and putting on a sweater, considering what we will be asking of others.

We'd better be sure we are right.  We could be at the point of realizing that washing hands between surgeries will prevent the spread of disease, or at the point where we are thinking leaches would be a pretty good idea.  Back to the original issue, if we don't know who's fault it is then we really don't know the cause and we really don't know the solution.. and we may kill the patient with good intentions

Or we may be at the point of no-return.  It may not be possible to change the outcome.  Maybe we're not the cause, maybe we never really figure out the cause, maybe we don't really have us much power as we hope and therefore we don't have enough power to change the results.  In which case we're beyond the point that anything we do will matter, in which case our focus should not be on stopping but but surviving it and adapting to it.  Or by the time we reach the point of collectively realizing we can't stop it.. we will also have lost the time to learn to adapt.

So, unfortunately,  I think we're at a point were we really don't know the cause.. not quantitatively, not predictably.  So we don't really know how to change the situation enough to affect the outcome. So we don't know if anything we are doing is enough, or even the right thing to do, or maybe even damaging in the long run.  And, unfortunately, by the time we know those answers, it may be too late.  Then again, it may be too late today and we need to face this.

Or..in short.  We don't have enough knowledge to act in wisdom, but we may not have the time to get that knowledge, either

In "To Build A Fire".. at what point and with what action or decision did the man condemn himself to death, and everything after that was just the actions of a dead man who didn't know it yet?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> How about here:
> In which you discount a report of 400 scientists and slander a US Senator, because they don't share the belief you do, then you appeal to the authority of a blogger on the Huffington Post, a place that is PROUD to be biased...
> Or here:
> Wherein you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't using reason.
> Or in this post from a previous thread where you imply the source of funding makes science suspect, if the science disagrees with your worldview: But, you ARE willing to believe a list of people whose continued employment is tied directly to fear of global warming...


 
I am not appealing to the authority of a blogger on Huffington Post. I was linking to an article, which disputes, in a factual way, the evidence of the report to which you link. I am not citing the blogger as an authority. I am referencing his research into the claims made by the report you posited.

Is Ray Kurzweil an "Prominent Scientist" in the area of Global weather patterns. The factual answer is NO. Pointing out undisputable facts is not an appeal to authority; it is called evidence. 

I certainly challenge the credibility of Senator Inhofe ... because his positions are widely acknowledged to be complete unfounded scientifically. Somebody has said, if it's true, it can't be slander. ... Well, Has Senator Inhofe held any meetings where scientists were called to present evidence? 

If you don't understand what the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is, and you can't discern between evidence and an appeal to authority, you are not arguing with reason.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks_
> 
> Actually, I believe it does. If you don't know whose 'fault' it is ,then you really don't know what's causing it. If you don't know what's causing it then you don't know why it's happening. If you don't know why it's happening then you really don't know how to change it.
> 
> ... and attempting to change it without really understanding the cause can be maybe helpful, maybe useless, maybe harmful.


 
First what does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust form US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2 and last Like I said :hb:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Like I said :hb:



I guess the point was missed... leaving me feeling like your little sign

Simply put, if you do not know the cause then you are just guessing at the solution... 

Per your earlier example, if the cause is cows, then no amount of electric cars will make a difference.

We are all in this together, but how we all get out kinda depends on how we all got here in the first place.  If we don't really know how we got here, we can't get out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> And now I gotta worry that Iowa is going to turn into a tropical paradise during the winter?


 
yup, only it won't be paradise.

back in about 1994 the entire midwest suffered from a huge amount of rain and the Mississippi river jumped its banks up and down its length and washed away entire towns.  I recall this because I am from Wisconsin, and I was in the process of preparing to move to California during this time.

At any rate, satellite photos of the region showed Iowa as being all but completely under water.  The entire state looked like another one of the Great Lakes.  

This is a more likely scenario than the cornfields turning into a tropical paradise.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_First what does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust form US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2 _

I don't mean 'fault' by 'finding someone to blame' in some sorta vindication or moral sense.  I mean 'fault' as in 'what got us here?'.

To expand.  If the source of the CO2 is cows, then electric cars won't reduce the CO2 going into the air.  If the source of the CO2 is US cars than closing CHinese industry won't solve the problem.  If the source is *all three* then only treating *one* will probably not be enough, but if any of those is not the source in a significant way, then focusing effort in t hat direction will probably be a waste of resources.

If you don't know how it got there... then you don't know how to stop more from getting there.  That's the 'fault' I think is important.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> I guess the point was missed... leaving me feeling like your little sign
> 
> Simply put, if you do not know the cause then you are just guessing at the solution...
> 
> ...


 
Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time

What does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust from US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2.

OK RANT TIME

All this type of approach does is give someone the ability to say its not my fault, pat yourself on the back and say THEY should fix it and go on happily feeling you accomplished something when in fact you didn't it is still getting warmer and things are still not looking so good but it makes people happy to say it is not MY fault and then they feel all better.

Simply put, FINDING a solution has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with finding someone to blame. And if the cause is cows I will happily eat an entire cow all by myself, it is not cows, that was put forth because the amount of ridiculous suggestions I have read in this and many posts on the subject and in other places that have been put forth to take the blame of humanity is getting absolutely maddening.

AND if it was proven to be cows that would suggest that they are the ONLY ones on the planet that produce CO2, HIGHLY likely as well as already PROVEN to not be the case. And IF you did have more electric cars you would be putting LESS CO2 into the atmosphere thereby making room for COW FLATULANCE. And I am REALLY hoping you are seeing the ridiculousness of that WHOLE thing.

What I am trying to say and wasting my time trying to say as it has been proven time and time again is we need to find out WHAT is causing it, IF it is actually something we can do something about and STOP WASTING time saying its not my fault BLAME THE COWS.

There are a lot of reasons for global warming and cooling and I am really not going to waste much more time here because it is fairly apparent I am typing just to hear the sounds the keys make when struck with various pressures. But IF it is proven that it is CO2 the ONLY species on the planet that can reduce its production of it and still get along fairly well in the long run (possibly even better) are HUMANS.

If it is a function of the Earths orbit there is not thing one anyone can do. It changes and has changed over time; during the time of the dinosaurs it was circular now it is elliptical

And if it is CO2 emissions and this warming has introduced to much fresh water into the ocean via melting ice, again there is not thing one we can do to stop the change but that STILL does not mean we can go on with business as usual because it WILL make things worse.

But here is the kicker. Hotter means more water in the atmosphere, more water in the atmosphere means more heat from the sun reflected back and less getting to the surface of the earth which means cooling and likely ice age. But this does not mean the planet will fix itself quickly but potentially it can but so then people can blame the earth for messing things up for people. So I guess in the long run it is the earths fault so we should not have to do anythingexcept of course possibly go extinct which is very possible if in fact the earth is self correcting and manages to get rid of us in the process.

And all of this of course brings me full circle and back to :hb:


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> To expand. If the source of the CO2 is cows, then electric cars won't reduce the CO2 going into the air. If the source of the CO2 is US cars than closing CHinese industry won't solve the problem. If the source is *all three* then only treating *one* will probably not be enough, but if any of those is not the source in a significant way, then focusing effort in t hat direction will probably be a waste of resources.
> 
> If you don't know how it got there... then you don't know how to stop more from getting there. That's the 'fault' I think is important.


 
We may not have identified every single contributor to the problem, but it is beyond question that our consumption of fossil fuels, including the burning of coal and petroleum products are huge contributors to the problem, no matter which citizens of which country are doing the consumption.  

I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world.  The Industrialized nations, which includes the US, make up about 15% of the world population.  This 15% is responsible for about 68% of the world's energy consumption.  I'd say the industrialized nations are a good place to start, in looking for ways to reduce consumption.  As developing nations such as China and India increase their consumption, as is inevitable, they need to do so in a way that is as environmentally responsible as possible.  But right now, it is the industrialized nations that need to take leadership in this movement, since the industrialized nations are the biggest offenders.  Developing nations should follow our lead, as they have followed our lead in becoming industrialized.  But we need a new direction or else we won't go anywhere but down the same path of self-destruction we have been on.

As other contributors of the problem are identified, if they are human-caused and under our control, then they also need to be dealt with.  Maybe cow farts are part of the problem.  OK, maybe we need to take a look at the beef industry and some of their practices.  Maybe the formation of huge corporate beef farms, with the concentration of tens of thousands of head of cattle into one small area is not the best way to farm beef.  I've seen these kinds of operations in the Central Valley in California.  They are pretty disgusting outfits.  The operation is vast, but the herds are packed into small areas relative to the numbers of cattle, and they all stand around on barren land, with no shade.  Maybe the smaller family farms, with smaller herds are a better way to pursue beef.  Maybe industries like fast food, that puts a high demand on beef with the requirement that it be as cheap as possible, encourages this kind of beef mega-operation.  Maybe we need to simply cut back on our beef consumption, so we can also cut down on the size of the cattle herds.

This is an example of the kind of things we need to scrutinize in the habits of our culture.  There are no quick and easy solutions, and some of the answers may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's far better than the catastrophe that global warming promises us if we just go along our merry way without even trying to change some things.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time
_

Possibly..

_What does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is._

Actually, none at all and I think you making that point again means that we are talking at cross purposes, or perhaps different meanings of the term.

You seem to be meaning 'fault' in terms of... well ... finger pointing as a way of placing blame, preferably elsewhere in order to avoid any personal responsibility.

I took the meaning of 'fault' to be 'root cause' for the sake of eliminating that root cause in order to fix the situation ..

So to that point I agree with you because in a  sense we are all at fault because whether the 'fault' is our lifestyle of cheeseburgers or the 'fault' is our fleet of automobiles or the 'fault' is buying cheaper products from China... well not only are we all in this together, we all *got* here together, so finger pointing for the sake of placing blame on 'them' and not on 'us' for any definition of 'them' and 'us' ... is pointless...counterproductive.

However, the way  I was using 'fault' was meant not as a moral judgement of blame or absolution or responsibility, just as saying that we need to know what actions are causing the situation so we can correctly address those actions; and that if we don't know the root causes (in terms of actions. not people) we may not be able to properly address them

My apologies for the confusion


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world. _

Yes, and I think part of my point was that while we know energy consumption rates today, we do not yet have a model that can accurately predict that rates of consumption yields rates in temperature change and therefore be projected forward to indicate that changes in rates of consumption will yield changes in rates in change of temperature and therefore we don't know how much we need to change.  Possibilities could be a) we don't need that much to make significant change in consumption patterns,  and thus we can cushion the rate of change of those patterns for minimal negative impact on lives b) we can change the rate of temperature changes, but it will require doing a *lot more* then we are currently even thinking of doing c) we have already done enough but it will take decades to see the effect or d) we cannot stop the process already started no matter what we do and our efforts need to be focused on survival and adaption.  Those are kinda 4 extremes but we don't have a tight enough predictive model yet to plot it out.  As stated, my fear is that by the time we have a strong enough predictive model for setting policy we will already have gone too far in some direction to actually use the model.  As I said, not enough data to make the right decisions, not enough time to collect the data...


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world. _
> 
> Yes, and I think part of my point was that while we know energy consumption rates today, we do not yet have a model that can accurately predict that rates of consumption yields rates in temperature change and therefore be projected forward to indicate that changes in rates of consumption will yield changes in rates in change of temperature and therefore we don't know how much we need to change. Possibilities could be a) we don't need that much to make significant change in consumption patterns, and thus we can cushion the rate of change of those patterns for minimal negative impact on lives b) we can change the rate of temperature changes, but it will require doing a *lot more* then we are currently even thinking of doing c) we have already done enough but it will take decades to see the effect or d) we cannot stop the process already started no matter what we do and our efforts need to be focused on survival and adaption. Those are kinda 4 extremes but we don't have a tight enough predictive model yet to plot it out. As stated, my fear is that by the time we have a strong enough predictive model for setting policy we will already have gone too far in some direction to actually use the model. As I said, not enough data to make the right decisions, not enough time to collect the data...


 

well then, this is where we disagree.  I believe the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about the effects of our polluting activities.  To NOT do something about it is to welcome disaster.  By the time we gather more data to fully satisfy every single holdout who refuses to recognize what is happening, it will definitely be too late.  The trick is that things need to be done before it reaches that crisis level.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_ I believe the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about the effects of our polluting activities._

I do not think the vast majority of scientist have a *predictive* model, not a model with numbers..  As I said before, F=ma.  What or where is the model that says that for every X tons of oil consumed per 1000 people per year, the temperature will rise Y degrees per decade" and from there "if the rate of consumption per 1000 per year is reduced from X to X-a, then the temperature  will rise Y-b degrees per decade".  And therefore at what value of a, do you reach a point where Y-b is 0, which is the goal..

I'm not saying there is not circumstantial evidence to say what is happening, I'm saying we don't have the numbers and equations enough to predict what does happen and what will happen, particularly if we change the input per our own actions.

_To NOT do something about it is to welcome disaster. _

Consider ethanol.  Not long ago I head it being pushed as environment friendly, now we know that the net impact on the environment is actually worse then normal gas; the only one benefitting from ethanol are the Big Ag companies at the expense of the Big Oil companies.  Or consider that if I switch from a gas powered car to an electric car; this does no real good if my electric source if one that burns oil to generate power anyway.  (of course if the power plant os using hydro, then my switch is a great benefit).

The problem is, if we don't know the X, the Y and the a; then we may not be knowing if we are doing enough, in which case doing anything is, rather brutally a waste of time.  Maybe we need to do a lot more than we think is enough; maybe Y approaches b asymptotically and we can get them close enough to be worthwhile, without them approaching zero.  But if we cannot quantize our inputs into the equation, then we cannot know affect we are having, and if we cannot really come to a good grasp of all the activities by humans, the sun, etc.. that feed into temperature rate change, then we risk actually causing harm rather than good as we try to tinker with long term temperature changes.

The risk we will cause harm is probably pretty small, but if we don't know the part we play.. who knows?

The risk we will do too little in time and not realize it it time is probably a lot higher.

The risk that everything we try will have much less affect that we hope, is a possibility.

The risk that we will totally mess up a lot of people's lives going in the wrong direction is also possible.

_By the time we gather more data to fully satisfy every single holdout who refuses to recognize what is happening, it will definitely be too late. _

There is a difference between trying to convince  those that do not want to be convinced and having enough data to make rationale decisions.

I mean, you don't budget by saying "well last year I got a raise so now I can go to dinner more often"  If you don't know the relationship between your income and your spending then changes on either side are just guess and hopeful thinking.

Of course, waiting to do a budget next year until you see all your pay stubs and receipts for this year is probably too late

_The trick is that things need to be done before it reaches that crisis level._

This assumes we did not reach 'crisis level' in our consumption thirty years ago and just haven't seen the impact until now (the point of no return in "To Build A Fire").  Just per example, there are assumptions in your statement about reaching the crisis level, our rate of approach, and our ability to change that rate significantly enough to avoid it.  I think you are slamming on the brakes hoping to avoid the wall, without knowing the distance to the wall or the rate of deceleration.  Maybe you will stop in time... maybe you will stop way early but burn out your brakes, maybe you won't be able to stop in time and you need to either swerve or brace for impact.

I hope we can stop in time... but it appears little more than wishful thinking and guesswork at this point.  We need to accept the wall is there and face it, but with eyes open


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2007)

I am reminded of a lyric by Neil Peart 

~~ If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice ~~

Freewill - Rush


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I am reminded of a lyric by Neil Peart
> 
> ~~ If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice ~~
> 
> Freewill - Rush





And that is my biggest fear.  That we don't know enough to take an intelligent and effective course of action, but we don't have time to wait for the knowledge.'

We will risk that if we start today then we can make enough difference to change the outcome, but without enough data we risk a course of action that will condemn us.


"The stars aren't aligned, or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give then receive

I will chose a path that's clear..."


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2007)

We know that we are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. 

We know that carbon stores energy from the sun. 

Methods of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, large and small will have an impact on facts of which we are certain. In the end, any actions we take may, in fact, be insufficent, but they are necessary. I was raised to believe, "There is never a wrong time to do the right thing." 

The right thing to do is to be cognizant of our impacts on our environment.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2007)

I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that we may have already passed the critical point of no return.  I don't know that with certainty, but I suspect it may be true.

That being said, choosing a route of less pollution is a wise choice regardless.  It might not be enough, and maybe we are already doomed anyway.  But I am willing to try at least because we do not know for sure we are doomed.

Developing other energy sources to move us away from fossil fuels is a wise choice, no matter what.  Ethanol may be trading one bad thing for another, so that may not be the answer.  But working to develop renewable resources such as wind and solar power is probably a good bet.  These are just suggestions.  i am sure they all have their own hurdles to cross before they are viable on a large scale.  But these are the kinds of things that need to be pursued.

It is clear that our pollution is contributing greatly to the problem.  Just because we may not be able to plug it into a definite formula to predict exactly how X amount of pollution will affect temperature over Y period of time, is absolutely no excuse to stall and wring our hands and refuse to do anything.  It's a stalling tactic, while the flood waters continue to rise.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2007)

I think it is important to note that "pollution" and global climate change are not synonyms. While pollution ~ exhaust from internal combustion engines, and the exhaust from power plats ~ are contributors to the effects we are witnessing, they are not the complete picture, by any means. 

I heard an interesting report on the last 1100 years on the island of Iceland. Apparently, when the Europeans first arrived on the island, the land was wooded, with a rich topsoil. The trees and soil held carbon. As the trees were cleared, the soil eroded, and the carbon that once was held in the sink of the environment was released into the atmosphere. 

And the process of photosynthesis, which takes carbon from the atmosphere and produces oxygen, is diminished. 

Much of what we do to impact our atmosphere should not be described as pollution.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time_
> 
> 
> Possibly..
> ...


 

In that case for this no picture of a generic person banging his head is necessary


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 23, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that we may have already passed the critical point of no return. I don't know that with certainty, but I suspect it may be true..


 
This is possibly true, it takes more time to make a glacier than melt it. And as I have been saying; introduce enough fresh H2O into the oceans and you shut down the oceanic conveyor belt system (and that will change temperatures and weather patterns drastically and globally) and that could have happened last Tuesday and we would not know about it for a hundred years (give or take) and to be honest I do not remember how long it would take to start again or what it takes to restart it other than an ice age. 

But this is only one system in the ocean that can effect the planet on a global scale. There are others and if you introduce to much fresh water into the system it can cause greater levels of CO2. And before anyone jumps on teh "OH that's the reason, it's the oceans fault" train. NO it isn't, something caused temperatures to rise to melt the ice to introduce the fresh water into teh ocean LONG before the greater amounts of CO2 were released. And the ocean is DAMN sensitive and VERY interconnected


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think it is important to note that "pollution" and global climate change are not synonyms. While pollution ~ exhaust from internal combustion engines, and the exhaust from power plats ~ are contributors to the effects we are witnessing, they are not the complete picture, by any means.
> 
> I heard an interesting report on the last 1100 years on the island of Iceland. Apparently, when the Europeans first arrived on the island, the land was wooded, with a rich topsoil. The trees and soil held carbon. As the trees were cleared, the soil eroded, and the carbon that once was held in the sink of the environment was released into the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2007)

Big Don said:


> A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...


 
Indeed they might. 

And a man who applies reason would probably conclude the variability of numbers of active volcanoes throughout the history of the planet has, quite probably remained within one or two standard deviations over time, and probably has not experienced a dramatic increase in the last century. If this is true, it would be erroneous, without additional evidence to the contrary, to bring this fact into a conversation concerning the rapid change in the amount of atmospheric carbon. For instead of bringing clarity, it just distracts from the facts known to impact that atmosphere that have experienced a dramatic increase in the last century.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 24, 2007)

Big Don said:


> A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...


 
Volcanoes do a lot more than that and depending on the size of the eruption the effect is different. Small eruption not so bad, Yellowstone super Volcano very very bad. The Volume of ash has a BIG effect on the climate not to mention an immediate effect on the people on the ground

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html



> Potential effects of volcanic gases
> The volcanic gases that pose the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a volcano. Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the Earth's ozone layer. Because carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air, the gas may flow into in low-lying areas and collect in the soil. The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in these areas can be lethal to people, animals, and vegetation. A few historic eruptions have released sufficient fluorine-compounds to deform or kill animals that grazed on vegetation coated with volcanic ash; fluorine compounds tend to become concentrated on fine-grained ash particles, which can be ingested by animals.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 24, 2007)

Speaking of doing something, take a look at this
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=444375&topart=passenger


----------

