Global Warming: Stormin Norman Style - To AK47

[Ghost Writer]

Here it is again. After being deleted by an insecure member of this board, I have decided to repost my assessment of the global warming issue. This is also being done because AK47 has brought the issue back up. It begins with the original post. Vox, a former member, criticized my evaluatoin of the issue. When I find my answer to Vox, I will post it as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Stormin Norman Style

We have all heard stories of sea levels rising, icebergs the size of Rhode Island breaking off the main ice shelves, and glaciers melting causing devastating Laharres. In addition, many note droughts, shifting weather patterns, increased flooding and rising disease as direct effects of this phenomenon called global warming. Since kindergarten, many have been taught about this principle in little detail. The theory of global warming has reached the status of a doctrine or creed. Who would dare question an idea proposed by the top scientists of the day? Taken on faith by the majority of people who lack the scientific background to review the scientific literature, climate change is viewed as a factual occurrence. Simply look at the record highs reached this year alone in many locations, to obtain irrefutable evidence of this fact. Many years ago we were faced with the same situation when most of the population of the western world were convinced that the earth was flat. If someone were to tell them the earth is a sphere, they would have laughed in the face of the opposition. Certainly anyone alive can see this lack of critical thinking taking form again today, as it pertains to global warming.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. If surface temperatures are actually increasing and CO(2) levels are increasing, one could deduce that the two have a cause and effect relationship. However, the scientific evidence for this is not entirely conclusive. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons to believe that the hypothesis of climate change being directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels is erroneous. In order to understand on of the most controversial issues of the day one must understand the theory, the physics, and the scientific method. A detailed look at the theory and problems with that theory must be considered before a person pledges an allegiance to such an idea. These issues will be the focus of this paper, as an investigation into the framework of the debate is thoroughly scrutinized. It will be necessary to lay out the actual theory and lay behind some myths attributed to global warming.

Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other hydrocarbons are at the heart of the issue, because they fuel our economy and remain byproducts of other process. Here is a site I hope familiarizes the reader with some of the main greenhouse gases and the levels produced.

Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html#hydro)

The reason greenhouse gases remain so controversial is largely due to the physics associated with certain types of molecules. All matter emits radiation at a level dependent upon its temperature and type of material, and is given by:

Radiation Law (applies to all objects in the universe, large or small, hot or cold)

R = eps*sig*(T^4)

Where

epsilon = emissivity of the object, and is a property of the material
epsilon = Ratio of R of object/R of black body
Sigma = Stephan Boltzman constant = 1.38x10^-23 J/K
T = temperature in Kelvin

The earth emits mainly infrared radiation. The source of this heat comes mainly from geothermal processes and the absorption and re-radiation of solar energy. The earth’s climate is due to a number of factors, the list is numerous and exceeds the topic of this paper. For our purposes we will discuss the temperature aspect. Let us consider the earth to be the system of interest, and the universe to be the surrounding environment. The process of heating the earth remains a continuous, transient process (depending on your view). The temperature variable depends on the amount of heat energy absorbed minus the heat energy released back into space. The earth’s atmosphere plays a crucial role in the regulation of heat loss to the surroundings. Overtime the flow-rates of the incoming radiation and output radiation reach some sort of equilibrium. This equilibrium is what allows for the temperatures conducive to life on this planet. The atmosphere can either reflect radiation back into space, or it can trap the radiation and prevent heat loss. Greenhouse gases are known to absorb radiation and because of their molecular properties radiate energy back towards the earth. The unique properties of the greenhouse gases remain the reason for concern over burning fossil fuels and the HVAC industries. However, due to the industrial implications both the left and the right have politicized the issue. Unfortunately, the science has suffered as a result.

Next, specific misconceptions about greenhouse gases must be shed for an objective look at the two sides of the issue. First of all, it was demonstrated that greenhouse gases are a necessity for life on earth. The reasons for this are listed above. Therefore, any idea that all greenhouse gases are bad should be thrown out. Water vapor and carbon dioxide, and methane are a fact of life, and would exist with or without human beings. Clearly, you can see how anyone calling for an all out ban on greenhouse gases is an idiot. Please don’t make the mistake of proving you are capable of a flat earth mentality.

Secondly, global warming or the majority of green house gases does not cause Ozone depletion. That is false. Chloro-fluorocarbons (CFC’s) have the ability to react with Ozone (0(3)). The chlorine can rapidly catalyze a reaction with oxygen gas being the major product. This phenomenon has been proven without a shadow of doubt. Ozone depletion results in a bombardment of ultra-violet rays, which are harmful to living organisms. This problem is entirely different than that of the global warming scenario, and should not be confused. With its discovery and acceptance, CFC’s were effectively banned from use and the ozone hole has demonstrated massive improvement. Yes CFC’s do exhibit greenhouse behavior, yet the concentration of CFC’s is to minute to make a real difference in the global warming issue.

Link to a site describing some ozone reactions: Ozone Reactions (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/high.htm#Introduction)

With a descent discussion of global warming theory, the science behind the theory, and some of the fallacies that accompany its use, we can now look at the problems with the data and the results.

In March of 1994, Scientific America published an article related to errors that scientists were making when they gathered data for their hypothesis. Most of the errors were in regards to making accurate measurements. Since then the methods have become more reliable, but it does raise a question. It was during this time period that popularity for this theory really started to snowball. Given the amount of grants and funding going into this research did scientists overstate the problem in order to secure future funding? Did the liberal media use this as a way to spread an environmentalist agenda regardless of the lack of clear evidence?

Inaccuracies in ice core sampling with regard to tracking CO(2) emissions persist. It has been shown that CO(2) concentrations increase after the initial deposition of the ice sheet. However, other methods were developed and also show a similar, yet less drastic increase in CO(2) concentration in the atmosphere, post industrial revolution. One such method is stomatal frequency analysis of leaves buried in peat deposits. This approach is more precise than that of the ice core sampling. The evidence obtained from this method corresponds to variations in CO(2) concentrations during glacial-interglacial periods. Furthermore, it has been used to estimate levels during the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene eras. Studies in the Netherlands have been conducted to investigate CO(2) emissions during the Late Glacial and Holocene periods. The results from these experiments have shown that High rises in CO(2) levels in less than a century have occurred, prior to the industrial revolution. These increases have occurred on the order of roughly 65 ppmv. A cooling occurred 300 years later and was substantiated by interpolating C-14 and O-18 fluctuations relative to one another. This occurrence is called the Preborial Oscillation. In addition, this method lines up closely with other methods of detection, mainly uranium-thorium and carbon-14 dating of coral reef. Not only does this data show a linkage between carbon emissions and global climate, but also it shows that this process has happened over time resulting from natural process. The natural process has led to concentrations similar to those that persist today and those projected for the future. These natural processes have led to a natural cycle of temperature fluctuation and should be a consideration when discussing greenhouse emissions. It appears the earth has a mechanism for balancing concentration levels in the long term, which is good news for those who fear global warming marks the beginning of the end for humanity.

Source: Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO(2) concentration
By: Wagner, Friedrike, et al

My greatest concern about the global warming theory is derived from the way such predictions are made. Currently, many proponents for the global warming theory claim that they have a model to predict future weather patterns. Anyone who has relied upon a local weather report to plan a day’s events should remain skeptical of such models. How can computer simulations, which fail to account for an infinite number of variables predict the climate 100 years out, when they can not even tell me with a large degree of certainty if it will rain tomorrow? Computer simulations have yet to be considered a good model by anyone, except for the people who are creating the software. It is widely accepted that such simulations are inaccurate in many other fields as well. Although the future of such devices seems promising, they currently lack the sophistication to be considered the final word on such matters.

In continuation, these models have predicted long term effects resulting from global warming. Most noted is prediction for a 4.5-6.0 degree Celsius rise in temperature resulting from a doubling of current concentrations. In addition, the same models have predicted an increase in atmospheric temperature. The Goddard Institute of Space Physics (GISS) has shown warming since 1979, where as, many other methods have not. Other methods of observation include satellite based Microwave Sounding Units (MSU’s), weather balloons, and sea level derived temperatures. The only method mentioned, which shows an increase since 1979, is the GISS. All others show very little change at all. Furthermore the atmospheric temperature has failed to increase as predicted by the computer models, providing further proof of the inaccuracies of computer simulations. It has been stated that the GISS model is more suited for the theory of the heat island effect than global warming.

Source: Inconsistencies in data (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/)

There are countless reasons why the global warming theory should not be taken as a matter of faith. Problems with the working model remain the most notable. Failures in atmospheric temperature changes failure to materialize in reality is yet another. In addition, to the problems with the simulations clear evidence has been provided that suggest perturbations in climate have occurred naturally, independent of man’s devices. This suggests that nature has a coping mechanism to deal with high concentrations of CO(x) gases and hydrocarbons, which are known to be greenhouse gases that exist naturally. Finally, there is ample reason for scientists to overstate the problem, as this issue has been politicized and many scientific grants are issued to investigate the matter. For every scientist that claims global warming exists, another scientist can be produced who states global warming is a farce. Perhaps, people should wait until all the facts are in and the scientific community has reached a consensus before they pledge allegiance to one view or the other. That is especially if they do not understand the issue and have failed to investigate the literature for themselves.

In conclusion, there are many others theories that offer a reason for a rise in global temperature. One such theory cites a correlation between the solar cycle and the fluctuations in surface temperature. This is surely a reasonable suggestion considering that most of the earth’s heat energy comes from the sun. Another theory claims that the earth’s core is a nuclear reactor and that there exists a relationship between the shifting of the magnetic polarity of the earth and previous climate changes. Whatever the answer, we should refuse to let science become the dogma that subjugates the masses like the religion of the Dark Ages. Every legitimate claim should have evidence to support its claim, but if further investigation rules that theory improbable that theory should be abandoned and replaced with a better explanation.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:21 am on Mar. 30, 2003)


(Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:31 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Anonymous]

I think your problem with the falt earth analogy is that the debate was a question of religion vs science where this is a case of science vs science and the majority of scientist reportedly believe in it.

[Ghost Writer]

In my schooling, I have only met one or two scientists that actually belief in it. I must also state that they were less respectable as teachers. Those thinkers I truly respect have not been so willing to hold such a belief without sufficient evidence, and this is where my religious comparison is appropriate. Nothing warrants unfounded beliefs unless they has been elevated to the level of a dogma. Now to you see the comparison I was making. If you are a complete skeptic, as was David Hume or Popper, you might say that the whole method of scientific induction is a matter of faith. This is not a view I agree with, and was the subject of the paper I currently finished. However, global warming and alot of the junk science that is being produced these days is accepted as a higher order doctrine coming down from up on high. I often hear uneducated people pointing to conclusions reached by some scientist somewhere as being absolute truth, without even bothering to investigate the evidence that the conclusion was inferred from. It is this lack of investigation, and blind faith that allows me to make the comparison that I did.

[sc4r]

Every legitimate claim should have evidence to support its claim, but if further investigation rules that theory improbable that theory should be abandoned and replaced with a better explanation.


That is probably the longest winded version of 'despite the evidence I dont believe it' I have ever seen. No serious scientist disputes the fact of global warming; temperatures have risen steadily over the past 100 years by approximately 0.5 degrees. This is as ceryain a fact as anything else ever is and so are the reports of antartic and arctic ice losses.

There are as you say numerous greenhouse gases and no scientist says that all of them have the effect of Ozone depletion but it is known for certain that some do and these some are created by industrial processes. It is not thought that this is the only effect either.

Nobody is asking that all greenhouse gases be 'banned'. This is a quite ludicrous straw man you are attacking here since fully 98% of them are completely natural. People are asking that man made ones be controlled so as to prevent the balance shifting.

It is not remotely relevant that industrial processes contribute only a small fraction of greenhouse gases or that only a small fraction of the earths temperature is due to such an effect. This small fraction tilts the balance which is all that is being claimed. Nor are the greenhouses gases created by industrial processes the same ones in the same proportions as are present 'naturally'.

The only sources claiming that Global warming is in dispute are extreme right wing ones (one of the best known being the one that very deceptively calls itself Globalwarming.com presumabaly in an attempt to present itself as an independent body, it is not).

The UN and the US government have both conceded quite categorically that Global warming is a fact. Both are fairly clear that industrial processes are implicated although the US version do say that they cannot see what to do about it or how much of the effect may be due to other processes.

Presumably you think that throwing in a lot of scientific jargon and a whole load of pretty rhetoric makes you an authority. It doesn't , it proves you can cut and paste or paraphrase science articles or own a chemistry book. You cannot seriously think that the basic science behind the claims of Global warming is in question or that nobody has ever considered what the source for the earths heat is. Posting stuff explaining how this actually takes place is about as relevant as a detailed explanation of embryonic development would be to a discusion about population problems.



(Edited by sc4r at 11:56 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 11:59 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 12:03 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Sc4r is an excellent example of the dogmatic approach that many have taken, with respect to global warming. Notice how he tries to create an illusion of unanimity on this topic. This too is a tactic used by religious fanatics when trying to win converts. He states that only right wing wackos would dare disagree with irresponsible questioning of a theory that has no evidence to support its claims. Either he is extremely unimformed, and does not know many Ph.D's, or he is the type of religious zealot that I make mention of in my piece.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:16 am on Mar. 30, 2003
Sc4r is an excellent example of the dogmatic approach that many have taken, with respect to global warming. Notice how he tries to create an illusion of unanimity on this topic. This too is a tactic used by religious fanatics when trying to win converts. He states that only right wing wackos would dare disagree with irresponsible questioning of a theory that has no evidence to support its claims. Either he is extremely unimformed, and does not know many Ph.D's, or he is the type of religious zealot that I make mention of in my piece.

Oe alternatively he could just be stating facts. I notice you didn't try to argue with any of them.

'Dogmatic' is another favourite right wing chant of course. I am not 'dogmatic' what I am is convinced. Could i be unconvinced, yep; but not by irrelevancies.

As to my statement that almost all reputable sources agree about Global warming that is my opinion about the facts. I have no way of proving it and you have no way of disproving it. It's for others to judge for themselves which of us represents the better opinion of this and which of is the more reliable and honest interpreter and presenter of such things.

You might wisdh this was a school debating contest, but it is not.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:25 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Read this statement signed by a number of Ph.D's who are in complete disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to result in climate change. I believe most are atmospheric scientists. Are all of these people right-wing ideologues, or could it be possible that there is still significant disagreement in the scientic community? Also note their reasons for doubting the theory, as they are much like my own. I am in good company. This is a matter of science not politics, sc4r.

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (http://www.sepp.org/statment.html)

Also read the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. It is stated that:

"As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results."

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html)

Here is some information on The Science & Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/abtsepp.html) that published these statements. I know who I will be donating to in the future.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:32 am on Mar. 30, 2003
Read this statement signed by a number of Ph.D's who are in complete disagreement that the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to result in climate change. I believe most are atmospheric scientists. Are all of these people right-wing ideologues, or could it be possible that there is still significant disagreement in the scientic community? Also note their reasons for doubting the theory, as they are much like my own. I am in good company. This is a matter of science not politics, sc4r.

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (http://www.sepp.org/statment.html)

Also read the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. It is stated that:

"As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results."

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html)

Here is some information on The Science & Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/abtsepp.html) that published these statements. I know who I will be donating to in the future.





ROFL.

First you find a 10 yr old statement from about 20 scientists that disagree with '160 nations' and think that proves that there is any serious dispute.

Secondly you presesnt a 5 yr old document which actually only claims that [we are not sure that it is sensible to address the problem] - translation 'we think it might be costly and that the US might not be the prime beneficiary - and that a few types of temperature measurement give results which are not understood. This latter claim is not put in context by the site of course, it is presented as though it is actually all measurements that are being disputed when in fact it is 3-4 out of 100.

If you want a rock solid indicator of bias it is this sort of thing. Find a part of the data which support your case and neglect to mention that it is only a small part of the available data and that the rest says something entirely different.

Do we fully understand what is causing Global warming, or even how it operates ? NO. Do we have rock solid eveidence that it is happening ? YES, Do we have a very convincing suggestion that man made pollutants are implicated ? Yes again. Should we actually do something about it ? IMHO Most definitely. Should we wait until the evidence is completely undeniable ? No we should not because by then it will be too late.

[Ghost Writer]

Here is my response to Vox's criticism of my post. I think that much of it would also apply to the current discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox,

1.) Considering the source, I will forget that you tell me to ignore my own perceptions that the liberal media exists. Anyone who is not so tainted with ideology would consider the mainstream TV media to have a liberal bias. Gun control this, anti-smoking that, CAFE standards over here, not withstanding campaign finance reform are only a few examples. Probably the biggest sign of left wing ideology can be witnessed by the blanket statement suggesting that corporate 'greed' is destroying our market system rather than socialists. Your example of presidential endorsements sounds a little weak. One must consider the stories these networks run constantly taking a liberal slant. No, Vox, maybe these aren’t hard line communists like you, but most sane people would concede that they are American liberals.

2.) Again Vox accuses me of lying by claiming that I purposely confused the terms weather and climate. Well, let me give the viewing audience the dictionary definitions of the terms and have them decide if I was so off base.

Weather - the atmospheric conditions (heat, cold, wetness, dryness, clearness, cloudiness, etc.)

Climate – the sum of the prevailing weather conditions of a place over a period of time

Source: New Webster’s Dictionary

However, I think that there are more important things to concentrate on. So, let’s not make a fuss over syntax. If you need help, I will further explain what the original statement meant. I made it clearly obvious that I was comparing meteorologist’s ability to predict short term weather patterns, with that of the environmental scientists use of computer models to predict long term climate changes. Most reasonable people will see the logic in my argument, especially if they are familiar with computer models. This must be one of those rare cases where Vox has jumped the gun and has proven himself wrong, in an obvious attempt to criticize the work of others.

3.) I thought I made it clear that the politicizing of the scientific arena was a tragedy. This is not a practice that I condone, but it remains a fact that the left uses the global warming theory to promote a specific agenda. Yes, many scientists on both sides of the political aisle get funding and grants. However, the widespread public acceptance of the global warming theory has made it particularly easy to discredit those who disagree. These dissenters are labeled scientific heretics. Any true scientist should always put politics aside in order to demonstrate honest results. Sadly enough, like many other fields, not all scientists abide by a good code of ethical conduct.

4.) Furthermore, Vox goes on to use President Bush as a source of scientific information. Last time I check the scientific community does not take the word of the President of the United States as scientific fact. I find it hypocritical that you would use the words of a man you obviously disagree with as evidence against me. Isn’t it widely accepted amongst liberals that this president is a moron? Why should I believe that you think differently on this issue?

5.) New Scientist as opposed to what, the old scientist? If I had to choose a method, I would choose the old school over the new school of thought any day. The scientists of yesterday seem to be a bit craftier than many of those today. However, there are many young scientist who take the old school approach and favor the scientific method to computer simulations.

6.) Vox claims that I took the ”we just don’t know approach”. I admitted a correlation between climate change and greenhouse gases. The difference remains, I stated that natural processes have been known to cause such events and that the results seem less drastic than those proposed by global warming advocates. What we don’t know is whether the human effect will be significant enough to deviate from previous cycles, or if humans will even have an impact on this naturally occurring cycle. In addition, I said that the most popular model has been proven inaccurate in its projections for atmospheric temperature increases. When investigating such matters we seem to look at one variable at a time and have limited capability when providing models of such complex systems as the earth. Excuse me, am I wrong here, Vox?

7.) Are you saying that I am a fool for suggesting further study into other hypotheses? What seems foolish to me is the suggestion that Marum Herdon is wrong because he doesn’t have a huge percentage of the scientific community backing him, that heretic. I do believe there is substantial evidence to support the basis of his theory and it remains one of the best explanations describing the earth’s changing magnetic field. It took people awhile to warm up to Plate Tectonics as well. The theory of continental drift has is now the rule rather than the exception. I can only hope that someone who fails to understand that what is unpopular is not automatically wrong will steer clear of the field of science.

8.) “It should be noted here that the polar ice caps reflect a lot of radiation, but water stores heat, which adds another level to the problem of warming.”

One of the interesting properties of water is the amount of energy required to heat it. This principle remains a fundamental reason why life is sustainable on our planet. In order to understand this phenomenon one must be familiar with thermodynamics.

The relationship between heat capacity of an object and heat energy can be described as follows:

Q = C(T_final-T_initial)Where Q is the Heat Energy (J)
C is the Specific Heat (J/K)
del(T) is the Change in Temperature (K)

The specific heat of a unit mass can is similar in nature

Q = cm(T_final-T_initial)Where m is the mass (kg)
c is the specific heat of a unit mass of material (J/kg*K)

In order to make the necessary calculations we will have to make a couple of assumptions:

For Salt Water the Specific Heat is 3900 (J/kg*K) – given by tables
The Average Depth of the Ocean is 3800m – from NOAA
The Mean Radius of the earth = 6.37x10^6m – known value
The Surface Area of a sphere = 4*pi*r^2
Density of any object is given by D = m/V
Density of Sea Water = 1.025*10^3 kg/m^3

Area = 5.1x10^14m^2 x 3800m = 1.94x10^18 m^3
Mass of sea water = 1.94x10^18m^3 x 1.025x10^3kg/m^3
= 2.00x10^21kg of sea water

Plugging this result into the Formula for Heat Energy gives

Q = 3900J/kg*K x 2.00x10^21kg x 1K
= 7.75x10^24 Joules of heat energy needed to raise the Temp. of water by 1 Kelvin

Now we must consider that the sun radiates 1000W/m^2 onto the earth:

24hr x 60min/hr x 60 s/min = 86400s in one day

86400s x 1000W/m^2 x 5.1x10^14m^2 = 4.41x10^22 Joules

Clearly the radiation from the sun is not enough to increase the temperature of the sea by 1K. That is even neglecting the cooling that occurs on the side of the earth not exposed to the sun. Therefore, according to my quick calculations, the idea that melting glaciers could somehow cause heating of the earth resulting from ocean heating doesn’t hold much water.

10.) Explain to me Vox, what exactly is the gravity of the situation. Nothing I have seen has led me to believe the theory that man is the sole cause of global warming, if in fact it is occurring at this time. I have seen plenty of evidence that suggests this movement is politically motivated.

11.) Vox then goes off on this rant. “Most disturbing about SN's piece, to me at least, is that he doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. When the stakes are this high, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?”

I found that line to be of particular interest, since it comes from a guy who claims to hold empirical evidence to be of the highest importance. Are you suggesting that we should through away the conditions for good science and error on the side of safety, regardless of the lack of conclusive scientific evidence? I think it is a good idea to bring this up since we are discussing a topic of scientific importance, and we are not simply tossing about assumptions based on a failed political candidate.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 2:15 am on Mar. 30, 2003
Here is my response to Vox's criticism of my post. I think that much of it would also apply to the current discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.

God you are wordy are'nt you.

Yes some people with sense would deny that the american media is Liberal in any perjurative sense. It is of course owned by confirmed capitalists and is usually said by those not of your persuasion to display a quite frightening predisposition to supress or trivialise positions which do not agree with the right wing bias of the USA (not surpising as these are where its income streams derive from).

Has 'the left' politicised the issue of Global warming ? Yes of course it has, how else do you think a solution will be obtained. If your objection is to politics then I kinda think you are in the wrong forum buddy.

The bottom line fact are that major scientific studies are sponsored by Governments. These SCIENTIFIC studies all conclude that Global Warming is a fact and that man made pollutants are implicated. There are individual scientists who think that some recommendations are premature (100 names sounds like a lot until you think about how many scientists there actually are); but even these dont actually disagree in the main with the conclusions, they disagree with very specific solutions or question not the fact but the extent of Global warming. There are of course any number of scientists who think the recommendations of these reports do not go far enough.

Do we fully understand Global warming ? NO

Should we stop investigating it ? No (and nobody is suggesting we should)

Should we refuse to act until every scientist in the world agrees that the proposed actions are 100% perfect ? Not in my opinion.

Am I to take it that you are not now actually going to respond to current argument but are so up your own wotsit that you will simply be dragging out previous posts and replying to ghosts ? You may consider your word immortal wisdom worthy of constant repetition, I doubt too many here agree.






(Edited by sc4r at 2:32 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I'm afraid that I too am in the camp of the heretics on this issue, though from a slightly different angle.

I think the evidence for humanity's role in global warming is overwhelming.

What I find unbelievable are "the sky is falling" "predictions" (guesses) that are derived rather loosely from the evidence gathered. We cannot, at this point, predict the weather accurately three weeks from now. Some say that will never be possible.

So when some scientist, however majestic his credentials, suggests that Stockholm will have a tropical climate by 2150, I balk! There is no way that can be known.

You know, it is quite possible that global warming will be a good thing. The expanded growing seasons in Canada and Russia will benefit the whole world. The warmer winters in the northern hemisphere will reduce consumption of natural gas and oil for heating. Etc.

But what really puts me off the hysteria about global warming is the argument from fear. Scientists are aware, these days, that there's nothing so helpful in nailing down that next research grant as scaring the hell out of the public.

I, for one, have grown oblivious to the cry of "wolf!" It is used constantly by any group that wishes to influence public policy, start a war, or separate me from my money.

Frightening people "for their own good" has become a major public-relations tool in late capitalism...and I think we communists should disdain its use.

And much as it sometimes pains me, integrity demands that credit be given where credit is due: That was a very good post, Stormin Norman. :)

:cool:

[Ghost Writer]

sc4r,

Look, I am the one who produced a paper full of facts, and you are the one who has yet to establish a single set of facts. Perhaps, if you mentioned anything not already addressed in my paper, I might respond.

I am looking for vox's criticism in its original form, but I have yet to find it. Certainly, he did a better job of defending his postion than you, and this may be why I would rather debate with a "ghost".

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 3:11 am on Mar. 30, 2003
sc4r,

Look, I am the one who produced a paper full of facts, and you are the one who has yet to establish a single set of facts. Perhaps, if you mentioned anything not already addressed in my paper, I might respond.

I am looking for vox's criticism in its original form, but I have yet to find it. Certainly, he did a better job of defending his postion than you, and this may be why I would rather debate with a "ghost".

You have posted a paper full of irrevant facts. I have actually posted several links to facts and if you want I can post as many scientific facts connected to global warming, climatology, chemistry, and physics as you like. It wont alter a damned thing because the bottom line is that I dont have to do the science myself or rely upon an individual like you to do it. The science has ben done by genuinely qualified people and they have published their results. You disputing them by pointing out such things as the chemical make up of CFC's or the geothermal activity of the earth means diddly squat. I somehow think that the UN and 160 of the world;s governments employed more than a few scientists who knew these basic things and took them into account.

Whether you would rather debate with a ghost or anybody else holds not the slightest interest for me. What u want concerns me not at all, nor does your approval. I dont expect it, value it, or want it.

You seem to think you are engaging in a debating contest and will doubtless declare yourself the winner and the cleverest person here (I've seen you do this before of course). I could care less about that.


(Edited by sc4r at 4:13 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:35 am on Mar. 30, 2003
I'm afraid that I too am in the camp of the heretics on this issue, though from a slightly different angle.



Sorry Redstar but your position seems to be simply one of denial through incredulity. The probable effects of the global warming trend (which you seem to accept as fact) have been analysed by many people and they do lead to very nasty consequences.

You are entitled to judge things as you see them of course but I would suggest you have a look at what SN is actually using his argument to do. He is not merely pointing out a few scientific facts (I don’t disagree with a single fact he has posted and neither would any scientist); but is actually trying to get the issue relegated to the ‘not for action’ file.

Every year we wait makes things more inevitable and more horrific. It is not simply a case of saying that eventually civilisation will adapt anyway, it will; but the question is what costs (human and economic) will be incurred if we are forced down that road because we do not act now.

Look at who is opposing action. The bottom line objection is that to act will cost more than the west is prepared to pay; the desire to allow economic growth and disproportionate accumulation of that growth in the the west (and the US in particular) underlies almost every serious objection.

Nobody is suggesting that we stop investigating the situation. Nobody is saying that if we cut emissions now and it later turns out that the predictions were unduly pessimistic we cannot turn them back on again. All we are saying is that the best info we currently have says that the consequences will be horrific and that every year we wait makes them worse. Under these circumstances I would say that a small restriction on US wealth accumulation is a ‘so what’ thing. The need to allow the US to continue its march to increased wealth disparity seems totally inadequate to justify the risk of extreme deprivation and harm that is predicted.

I say again. The US in general and the US wealthy in particular will not be harmed overmuch by the effects of global warming. These people can indeed relocate and re-invest. The effects will be felt mostly, as always, by the poorest.

I urge you to forget your feelings of incredulity and instead look at the predictions being made by people who are actually supposed to know, people who have studied the whole situation (not random meteorologists who express dissatisfaction with the detail of what is being predicted). Then think and decide why certain people wish to encourage a do nothing attitude.

You may think SN and his buddies are dispassionate observers of science on this issue, I don’t. This is just a convenient cover story for them. They wish to continue getting richer and will try to cover the whole situation in confusion by variously discrediting detail, citing the absence of absolute proof (not present in any large scale science or economic model of course), and questioning the cost benefit case. They will delay forever because they themselves cannot actually lose by doing so.

Good science does not make for good conclusions unless the science is relevant. SN’s scientific facts are not.

It really comes down to this : Suppose SN and likeminded types are right, what will be lost is some wealth in the west. Suppose he is wrong, what will be lost is millions of lives and untold misery. Is his view honestly sufficiently probable that you would risk it? This is the key question and it the one that SN and co. will not address directly because it is too self evident what the conclusion should be for anyone not obsessed with their own personal wealth. They hide behind detail because that it is the only place they actually can hide.

It is not a case of us saying that we must act because any risk is unwarranted but of us saying that this particular risk is very high. Insurance companies seem to agree, they are increasing the costs of disaster insurance at a fantastic rate and are starting to flat refuse to cover certain eventualities at any price.

I include a number of links to Global warming cost estimates. Note how many of them focus on the costs to the USA not the costs to the world. Even purely from an American viewpoint it is becoming more and more difficult to sustain the idea that inaction makes sense; from a global viewpoint it is completely unsustainable.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_606098.html?menu

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/re...es/inaction.asp (http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/resources/inaction.asp)

http://www.pirg.org/reports/enviro/flirting/

http://www.eng.ohio-state.edu/news/coe_new.../702_costs.html (http://www.eng.ohio-state.edu/news/coe_news/nie/nie702/702_costs.html)

http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuil...cfm?storyid=443 (http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=443)

BTW predicting the weaher isd a whole lot more difficult than predicting the climate. In the same way that predicting the next number to come up on a roullette wheel is very much more chancy than predicting that the casino will make 5% per bet over the course of the night.

(Edited by sc4r at 5:23 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"Is his view honestly sufficiently probable that you would risk it? This is the key question and it the one that SN and co. will not address directly because it is too self evident what the conclusion should be for anyone not obsessed with their own personal wealth. They hide behind detail because that it is the only place they actually can hide."

I disagree, I have addressed it. The burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim. This is a condition that has not been met by those promoting the global warming line. To take action on every belief that existed would be ridiculous. There must first be a good reason for action. At this point, those like you keep pointing to "the gravity of the situation", without substantial evidence to back it up.

It is no coincidenxe that left-wingers and communists have clung to this theory. They do it precisely for the reason you mentioned. It will cost the United States a astronomical figure, and those third world countries can continue to break their end of the bargain. This is simply another attempt to undermine the United States, nothing more. When you can produce evidence that addresses the questions that I have and leaves any doubt behind, as they did with ozone depletion and CFC's, I will be willing to discuss any necessary actions.

I can, in a similar manner as the global warming alarmist, state that aliens are going to invade the planet. In addition, I can lobby before congress to get them to allocate money for defense spending to combat such a devastating scenario. The fact that I claim something might happen if we do not act, does not make the spending any less ridiculous. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the global warming proponents are doing. However, their reasons are specifically rooted in an anti-American agenda. Perhaps if they were less interested in their underlying goal, and more interested in the actual science, we might have some common ground. Unfortunately for them, their motives are overwhelmingly transparent, as are yours, Sc4r.

[synthesis]

This is simply another attempt to undermine the United States, nothing more.
, their reasons are specifically rooted in an anti-American agenda.Can you prove any of this, or are you simply hypothesizing?

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 5:03 am on Mar. 30, 2003
"I disagree, I have addressed it. ...... Unfortunately for them, their motives are overwhelmingly transparent, as are yours, Sc4r.

Well having said that you have and implied that you will, you then dont.

There is not the slightest doubt that there is evidence for Global Warming. If there were not I cannot somehow imagine that the UN, The US government and several thousand scientists would have expressed the view that there is. The only isue is probability. You seem to give it a zero probability rating which is about as dumb as absolute dumb.

What you are saying is quite simply that you personally will not accept that it is proven beyond doubt. and that your O' level science facts may have been overlooked by practising scientists evaluating the issue. Again this is almost off the scale for stupidity, arrogance and self obsession.

As to your notion that I have hidden motivations behind supporting action on Global Warming beyond the obvious one that I think its likely to be true and dont like what happens if it is; its totally absurd. Spending money on Global Warming will not topple the US government. It's just decided to spend more attacking Iraq than many say would be needed to address Global warming completely.

What probability would you say there is that the world's temperatures will rise by say a degree in the next 50 years and what ocean level would result, how much human suffering and economic damage would result ? This would be addressing the question. Not pointing out that some hydrocarbons occur naturally or that 98% of greenhouse gases are natural.

[Ghost Writer]

Can anyone of the proponents of global warming show me a model that accounts for the uptake of carbon dioxide through photosythesis? This is a huge variable that is being completely ignored by those who promote faith in global warming. Why would they neglect increased plant growth and longer growing seasons as a way the system might compensate for increases in carbon dioxide emissions? Most systems approach equilibrium when a balance has been disturbed. Why would a system as complex as the earth not behave in the same manner? The IPCC has ignored this variable, leaving those of us who ask questions to wonder about there agenda.

In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes has also ignored a two percent increase in the average cloud cover, even though they are well aware of this fact. Obviously, this variable also plays a role in global warming. Too me, those who promote damaging the U.S economy as a result of such poor science are really the only one's ignoring the facts.

It amazes me that some would even listen to a panel that ignores two large variables that have a tremendous impact on the global warming issue. The fact that countries could not factor in their carbon dioxide consumption is one of the main reasons the United States bailed on the Kyoto Protocol. Anyone with any experience in science or engineering would tell you that you must take both consuption and generation terms in order to arrive at a net output for any material balance. Why would a nations carbon levels be any different? The answer is because this is a political issue, meant to damage industrialized nations while giving underdeveloped countries, which polute more per process, a complete pass. The Kyoto Protocol was a junk treaty, propsed by junk scientists.

[sc4r]

Well actually I seen to recall see'ing both of those things acounted for in Global Warming positions. Am I going to spend hours trying to loacte them ? No. Why not ? because one does not need to know anything at all about them to know that Global Warming is a reality because the net effect can be measured directly. The earth has got warmer by 0.5%c and Ice cover is breaking up. It matters not that there may or may not be some compensating factors which prevent it getting warmer at an even faster rate.

Nor is anyone claiming that if Global enmissions were stabilised that an equilibrium would not be reached. Of course it would be, so what ? the point is that the equilibrium point would be different and it is the current equilibrium point that our civilisations (not people) have adapted to.

Like I've said before you are posting irrelevancies.

[Ghost Writer]

You're the one posting nothing but bullshit. You say that you don't need the facts, because the facts are there. I provide you with information that casts doubt about whether or not we have been getting accurate readings from our weather balloons and sattelites. There are major discrepancies. All you do is ignore them and call them irrellevant. I have shown the shortcomings of computer models, again to be ignored by a know it all, with probably no background to even speak on such issues. Man, you have proven the flat-earth, non-investigative, dogmatic approach of the global warming advocate. This was one of the major points of my paper. Thank you for demonstrating it so well.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:39 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I have had three years of physics, three years of mathematics, three years of chemistry, and a multitude of other courses like thermodynamics, kinetics, and mathematical programming on a college level. I am working on a bachelors degree in a field strongly dependent on the physical sciences.

What is your level of education, if you don't mind my asking?

[sc4r]

I have has 125 years of advanced neclear Physics and climatology. I am a certified genius at maths, biology, and stuff. I am currently undertaking very post graduate reserach into chicken vindaloo and lager coinsumption.

Oh! and I also have a degree in realising that this is an internet forum and not only can I claim whatever I like but that even if any of it is true it alters the force of whatever I say by not one scintilla.

If you want to prove you are clever or right thats what u have to do, prove it, not cite qualifications.


(Edited by sc4r at 1:21 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I think I have proven my worth, just as you have proven your ignorance. I was just wondering what your qualifications were. Since I did not get a decent answer, I will assume that to mean that you are a high school dropout. Sorry, but I think that my question was fair, seeing as how we are concerned with a subject that takes a scientific understanding that, quite frankly, you do not have. I am in the process of getting full training in a field of study that gives me a unique perspective in this area, and I understand that that counts for something. I will not stop at my bachelor’s degree, as I plan to obtain my Doctor of Jurisprudence and my M.B.A concurrently. If that falls through, I would be an excellent candidate for a Ph.D. program in Biochemistry or something similar. Whatever the case, education is important, and I place emphasis on it. Sorry if that offends you.

I suppose you are right. This is a message board, and you can spout off any nonsense, and never really be held accountable. Because of this you don't really have to concern yourself with the facts. It's quite all right to espouse an opinion with no rational basis, as it will never affect your real life. However, those of us concerned with the inconvenience of arriving at the truth find this attitude to be deplorable. The truth should always be the goal. Otherwise, you are just adding to the informational noise that exists and generating further confusion among those knowledge seekers that do exist in the world.

That leads me to the question. Do you believe in fundamental truths, sc4r?

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 2:57 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
, I will assume that to mean that you are a high school dropout.

Asuume what u like mate. It means absolutely nothing. I'd say that I have just made a testable prediction (that you would declare yourself the winner) and that if this were not such an incredibly simple thing to forecast it would put me one up.

If I wanted be really snotty (OH! I do) I'd point out that you have not responded to a single actual point I've made, but have just done exactly what I knew you would do and resorted to an appeal to authority (yourself LOL!). Do you seriously think that nobody saying that global warming is a reality (everybody actually publishing seriously on the subject) is not far better qualified than you in relevant fields?

(Edited by sc4r at 3:09 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"I'd point out that you have not responded to a single actual point I've made, but have just done exactly what I knew you would do and resorted to an appeal to authority."

Likewise, you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing. Demonstrate to me where you have made one point that addresses anything I have said here. Why don't you post one then? As far as I can tell you have not made one. Why don't you point one out for me? I will take them one at a time. Hell, generate a coherent list.

[sc4r]

Demonstrate to me .....

Nope, I'm not interested in demonstrating anything to you, and certainly not going to repeat myself just becaue you demand it. Anybody interested can make their own minds up by reading whats already been said.

Far as I can see your claims ended by being that you had taken a college course in something that might be relevant. Frankly if that's the extent of your ambition and your case I'm willing to concede it.

Stormin Norman has has taken a university course in something relevant in some way to Global warming. Happy now ?

However the instant you started talking about qualfications rather than the issue of Global warming you had lost that argument because it is patently obvious that there are thousands of people far more qualified than you on the subject. I can walk down the pub tonight and find 2-3 if I cared to probably.

I've no idea how impressed anyone else is by the fact that you very nearly have a degree, but its not exactly soemthing that fiils us with awe and reverence where i come from.



(Edited by sc4r at 3:53 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Such has been the quality of your debate, from the get go. If you want to let what you have said stand, so be it.

You say I lose because I talk about my qualifications to speak on the issue, I say that is bullshit. I don't care if there are people more qualified than me, because I have enough brains to make a judgement about the issue. I would listen to what a more qualified person had to say, as I am always interested in learning, but I would evaluate their argument with a critical mind. How does that make me a loser. You are the one prematurely claiming victory, and walking out of the debate, just for the record.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 3:56 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Such has been the quality of your debate, from the get go. If you want to let what you have said stand, so be it.

You say I lose because I talk about my qualifications to speak on the issue, I say that is bullshit. I don't care if there are people more qualified than me, because I have enough brains to make a judgement about the issue. I would listen to what a more qualified person had to say, as I am always interested in learning, but I would evaluate their argument with a critical mind. How does that make me a loser. You are the one prematurely claiming victory, and walking out of the debate, just for the record.

LOL I havent claimed a victory for me chummy. I've claimed that you LOST the moment you resorted to invoking your own qualifications as justification. You didnt lose it to me; You lost by your own criteria to the tens of thousands better qualified than you.

What you seem to be saying is that if you are better qualified (which you actually have no way of knowing of course) then you win and if anybody else is then you can be the judge.

Personally I could care less about any concept of 'winning' an internet debate. You might be obsessed with getting a leetle bit of recognition for your mighty intellect and feeding your so obviously underfed ego. I'm interested in getting the truth across to as many people as possible.

You see i outgrew schoolyard debating contests many years ago.

Howvere I am now out of this particular debate because all thats going on is a pissing contest.

[Ghost Writer]

I simply asked your educational background.

As for you not being concerned with debate, that has been evident for some time.

[redstar2000]

sc4r, I looked at all the links that you posted. As far as I could tell, the argument seemed to be (1) the 1990s featured an unusually high number of "extreme weather events" and (2) they were caused by global warming.

Sorry, but #2 doesn't follow from #1. Why? Because every decade has "extreme weather events". It's the nature of weather to be "extreme".

In addition, of course, all kinds of subjectivites can creep into the definition of "extreme". Hurricane A plowed into the coast of "Texas" in 1488 and caused $0 in damage...no one lived there. Hurricane B in 2008, same target: $Big Number Billions in damage. First hurricane...not even recorded. Second hurricane...seen as another sign of catastrophic global warming.

If we had 10 or 20 centuries of accurate global weather records, perhaps it would be possible to talk about "unusual" or "extreme" events with some degree of certainty. You know as well as I that the "data base" from which these alarmist conclusions are being drawn is far smaller than that.

I think "cost-based" arguments are useless in this discussion on either side...because they are pure guess-work. If you knew all the assumptions built-in to a particular estimate, then you could at least decide whether or not it made some kind of sense. Firing cannonades of trillions of imaginary dollars "melts no ice" with me. :cheesy:

If tropical diseases do spread northwards and southwards into the temperate zones, perhaps this will supply the necessary incentives to develop cures and vaccines for these diseases.

But as to the contention that global warming will have the most damaging effects on the poorest people of the world...that seems to me to be unbelievable on its face. Most of the world's poorest people live in tropical and sub-tropical climates, where warming will be minimal or non-existent.

You do understand how this is going to work, sc4r? Global warming means warmer nights, not hotter days. It means warmer winters, not hotter summers. The tropics are unaffected; the sub-tropics warm very slightly; the temperate zones warm quite a bit; the polar areas warm the most. Greenhouse gases don't generate heat; they just allow the earth to retain the sun's heat for a little longer than it otherwise would.

sc4r, I actually have no objection to most of the actual measures proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is, improved gas mileage, re-forestation, solar power, etc., stand, in my opinion, as "good ideas" on their own independent merits. They don't "need" "global warming" to justify them...though I can see how "global warming castastrophe" could be used to "scare" people into adopting them.

But only if you think that "scaring people for their own good" is justified. And as I've already said, I think that's a bad strategy.

A couple of minor points. SN, the display of academic credentials--real or "virtual"--is a hopeless way to argue here. The history of academia is replete with learned experts who were not only totally wrong but in circumstances where they should have known better. No one but an utter child is impressed with certificates.

I daresay that there are some "leftists" who seize on "global warming" as a stick with which to clobber the American Empire. But the scientists doing the work are "on the capitalist payroll" by definition; they either work for government research institutes, universities, or private industry...all of which are deeply embedded in capitalist society. I'm sure there are some, perhaps many, who "shade" the numbers to favor one side or the other...that happens a lot in science these days.

I suspect that the models that predict "catastrophe" are based on a large number of pessimistic assumptions; and those who predict minor and trivial effects have a large numper of optimistic assumptions likewise built-in. That's the problem with models...you can make them come out the way you "want them to" just by varying the initial conditions/assumptions.

I would only add that arguments are not "won" or "lost" on this board. Perhaps that is fortunate. :cheesy:

:cool:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:54 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
sc4r, I looked at all the links that you posted. As far as I could tell, the argument seemed to be (1) the 1990s featured an unusually high number of "extreme weather events" and (2) they were caused by global warming.


Thank god some actual points :-)

Ok, No the case does not rest upon the fact that the 90's had more unusal weather events. The pattern of increasing temperature is one of consitent year on year rises throughout the last century with both the decade averages and annual peaks getting higher. There was an anomolous peak in 1943 followed by a sharp decline and the 43 peak was not reached agin until the 70's sice when all decades have ben hotter than the 40's and annual peaks have reached much higher levels. Its a very clear statistical trend in my view with only the sorts of variations which one always sees in complex variable systems (it is not exactly hard to think of a reason for the 43 peculiarity).


I think "cost-based" arguments are useless in this discussion on either side...because they are pure guess-work. If you knew all the assumptions built-in to a particular estimate, then you could at least decide whether or not it made some kind of sense. Firing cannonades of trillions of imaginary dollars "melts no ice" with me. :cheesy:



This is a major disaster scenario we are talking of. Neither you nor I, nor even Norm with his almost degree, are competent to judge them in detail or are ever likely to be. The cost estimates are of course just that but they are a bit more than 'just guesses'. I dont know how used you are to producing cost benefit estimates, but believe me a whole lot more research has gone into these ones than is typically the case for anything remotely equivalent in business. One estimates because thats all one can do. The ranges are large to reflect the uncertainties. The point really is that the available estimates say the problem will be huge and all of them say that the longer we wait the worse it will be. Now look at the flip side and assume these best estimates are hopelessly wrong what do we lose ? Some parts of the world get rich a little slower and pollution (whether catastrophic or not) is a little improved. Its practically a win/win scenario for the world at large (As you said).



If tropical diseases do spread northwards and southwards into the temperate zones, perhaps this will supply the necessary incentives to develop cures and vaccines for these diseases.

But as to the contention that global warming will have the most damaging effects on the poorest people of the world...that seems to me to be unbelievable on its face. Most of the world's poorest people live in tropical and sub-tropical climates, where warming will be minimal or non-existent.

You do understand how this is going to work, sc4r? Global warming means warmer nights, not hotter days. It means warmer winters, not hotter summers. The tropics are unaffected; the sub-tropics warm very slightly; the temperate zones warm quite a bit; the polar areas warm the most. Greenhouse gases don't generate heat; they just allow the earth to retain the sun's heat for a little longer than it otherwise would.



There is no need for an incentive to produce cures for these diseases. In most cases the cures or preventions already exist. The issue is about who will pay for them.

It also means raised sea levels and the consequent damage to infrastructures. It means that lands with established types of agriculture become unusable for that purpose and that some arable land becomes unusable (some others become usable). It isnt that the rich will be unaffected because they currently inhabit the best lands, it is that the rich will already have accumulated enough wealth to relocate if neccessary whereas the poor will not. The poor will be relocated into lands unsuitable or at best unprepared for the type of existence their poverty dictates they must have while the rich will relocate into the newly 'improved' but previously poorer areas. If these same rich did not already own vast parts of these land you could perhaps make a case for saying that if everybody behaved honourably then the sitaution would even out. I would have assumed that you realise that neither real life capitalism nor real life responses to short term / lonmg term gain actually works like this and that many poorer areas of the world are effectively owned by the west already but 'leased out' to poorer workers.

AS you correctly said nobody wins an internet debate. I'm stating things as I see them, and you state them as you do. Hopefully both of us are intelligent enough to realise that we do not know everything that the other does and that we will ariive at a synthesis which is better than eitherof us would reach independendly. I did not know that a warmer planet meant mainly hotter nights and I am off to find out more about this, but of course as I said to norm I do know that the people evaluating the situation did. I did know that it was about heat retention of course.

[Ghost Writer]

Thank god some actual points :-)

Ok, No the case does not rest upon the fact that the 90's had more unusal weather events. The pattern of increasing temperature is one of consitent year on year rises throughout the last century with both the decade averages and annual peaks getting higher. There was an anomolous peak in 1943 followed by a sharp decline and the 43 peak was not reached agin until the 70's sice when all decades have ben hotter than the 40's and annual peaks have reached much higher levels. Its a very clear statistical trend in my view with only the sorts of variations which one always sees in complex variable systems (it is not exactly hard to think of a reason for the 43 peculiarity).

This is what statisticians call distorting trends by choice of the time period. In order to avoid this you should be sure not to choose the origin at a particularly high or low point. This can give a false impression about the general trend. In addition, you should stop your graph at a point that is extremely high or low, but this does not concern us, since we are taking the data all the way to the present. Finally, and most importantly, do not choose a graph that only depicts a relatively brief span of time. Surely, the roughly 60 year period you chose is considered a brief span with respect to the gelogical time scale. And this is the biggest problem with what you have said in your first paragraph. You are ignoring perturbational trends that are occurring. You are ignoring the cyclic nature of such natural processes. You are picking a time span that conveniently allows for your interpretation of the data, and ignores all else. This is one of the most despicable attempts to distort the data that the global warming proponents are guilty of committing. Please don't try that bullshit here, as I am not buying.

[sc4r]

perhaps you ought to read what is said. the time period is the last 100 years. 43 represents a interim peak. This is such a well known fact in Global warming circles (either pro doing somehting or against) that its flat out amazing that you did not immediately pick up on it.

Whats your actual pijt here ? that we ought to examine data that we dont have back for the last thousand years ? that if we dont have perfect data then we should ignore what we do have ?

I'm perfectly competent at analysing stats ta very much.

[Ghost Writer]

This is a major disaster scenario we are talking of. Neither you nor I, nor even Norm with his almost degree, are competent to judge them in detail or are ever likely to be. The cost estimates are of course just that but they are a bit more than 'just guesses'. I dont know how used you are to producing cost benefit estimates, but believe me a whole lot more research has gone into these ones than is typically the case for anything remotely equivalent in business. One estimates because thats all one can do. The ranges are large to reflect the uncertainties. The point really is that the available estimates say the problem will be huge and all of them say that the longer we wait the worse it will be. Now look at the flip side and assume these best estimates are hopelessly wrong what do we lose ? Some parts of the world get rich a little slower and pollution (whether catastrophic or not) is a little improved. Its practically a win/win scenario for the world at large (As you said).

The only thing you have done here, is restate the question. What do we lose? How about good science, and trillions of dollars that could have been better spent on a real problem. Like I asked you before, what happens when we start taking action on any whim that has not been proven to a large degree of certainty. For example:

"We believe that possibly as much as 60 percent (or more) of the population already believe that the government is hiding what they know about worldly visitors. Whether for our own protection or their own abuse of power, the reason for this secrecy is unclear. If only the slightest percentage of the hundreds of reported cases are true, then this is something the people need to know about."

source: http://greenzilla.tripod.com/index21.htm

Obviously, with such a high number of sightings the threat is real. I demand that we start spending money to solve it, and defend against an Orson Wells type of invasion. What have we got to lose? It's a win/win situation. Everyone will be satisfied that we used the budget in such a prudent manner. Don't you think?

Check out the link I provided to see how similar your argument is to those who believe in aliens. I particulary like this one:

"The skeptic can pose many arguments like -"where's your proof or physical evidence" or "even if there was life out there, the distance between stars is too great for us to ever be visited". Yet, who can say what technologies a race hundreds or even thousands of years ahead of us might have. Just look what man has accomplished in the last hundred years with science, computers, space travel, etc. Now imagine a race with technology a thousand years ahead of us. Many will argue that man as a species, is still very young and so is our science, so there may be many ways to overcome the vastness of space that we don't even know about and have yet to discover. As for the proof, it may well be out there, to anyone with eyes open enough to see it. In light of possible government cover-up conspiracies and disinformation efforts, we believe that some of the best proof may currently be found with the abductees. Whether you believe or not matters little to them. They truly believe it to be real. You don't just wake up one day and say- "Oh, I think I'll be abducted by aliens today". This is a horrifying experience to those who have not yet come to terms with it. Many believe they are loosing their minds at first. They don't want it to be true. It can't be true. Many would also prefer that they were crazy or delusional. We are not here to say, "Yes, all these people are being abducted by aliens". The fact of the matter is that something is happening to hundreds of people all around the world that doesn't quite add up."

Damn, that's almost word for word the argument you are giving here, Sc4R.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 7:49 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"Hopefully both of us are intelligent enough to realise that we do not know everything that the other does and that we will ariive at a synthesis which is better than eitherof us would reach independendly."

Nope, I won't admit that in this case. If my understanding of the issue got an better, it was a result of my own work, not yours.

[sc4r]

What is your point ? Calling it a 'whim' doesnt make it one. Not even the US government or sensible right wing think tanks do that. What they do is say that they dont think they want to spend the money on it.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the earth has warmed by 0.5 degrees over the past 100 years.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is a trend not an isolated freak year.

There is absolutely no doubt that the results of this trend if extrapolated (and there is no reason not to do so and plenty of reason to do so) lead to a great deal of harm and to costs.

There is very little serious doubt that man made emissions contribute.

The only serious question is whether money should be spent to address the problem or not, and if so how much.

Its totally irrelevant whether some of the warming is natural; it is still a problem.

Of course you can always say that because not everything is known it is possible that for some unexpected reason a trend will suddenly halt. You can keep doing that forever but isn't an especially great way to get problems dealt with. Taking decisions based on imperfect data is what we do all the time.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 7:57 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
"Hopefully both of us are intelligent enough to realise that we do not know everything that the other does and that we will ariive at a synthesis which is better than eitherof us would reach independendly."

Nope, I won't admit that in this case. If my understanding of the issue got an better, it was a result of my own work, not yours.


I was not even hoping that you were intelligent enough to realise it.

[Ghost Writer]

perhaps you ought to read what is said. the time period is the last 100 years. 43 represents a interim peak. This is such a well known fact in Global warming circles (either pro doing somehting or against) that its flat out amazing that you did not immediately pick up on it.

Excuse me, a whole whopping 100 years of data, ooo! That really warrants extrapolating out over the next 100 year span, doesn't it? Come on, nobody in their right mind would suggest that you would get an accurate reading. With that data you should be able to interpolate, but I don't think I would feel comfortable extrapolating beyond 3 or 4 years.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:35 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
I have had three years of physics, three years of mathematics, three years of chemistry, and a multitude of other courses like thermodynamics, kinetics, and mathematical programming on a college level. I am working on a bachelors degree in a field strongly dependent on the physical sciences.

What is your level of education, if you don't mind my asking?


I have also not reached your level of education... But you said you went to collage... I have know idea about the USA system of education. But isnt a university on a higher level??? because i intend to go to Uni in 1 and a bit years... and by then i will be equily qualified with you. If not higher qualified.

Anyway what the fuck does physics etc have to do with Global warming.. If you said geography or metiorlogy then i may have taken you seriously.... But ya didn't.

Any way back to the issue look at this site: -

http://www.studentcentral.co.uk/coursework...ssays/2527.html (http://www.studentcentral.co.uk/coursework/essays/2527.html)

I think that is an extreamly fair site...

(Edited by AK47 at 6:57 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well I must say that if I had seen more of taht from SN and less *****ing about the nasty James I would be more impressed ;). I have to take his side kind of on the global warming issue, however I don't think he really says we shouldn't act, I may well be wrong because I read quickly.

I take that view on global warming, and the idea of the media and scientists doing it for profit at the expense of us seems more of a left wing argument.

However I don't think global warming is the main issue, massive changes have occured all through history, life adapts and moves on. Humans are no different.

The thing that we are doing though is shooting ourselves in the foot, the emissions from fossil fuels are better linked to cancer and such, rather than global warming.

Our lives are so unnatural, a car everyday will have more effect on the respiritory systems of drivers (actually you could argue all sytems, but that is the easiest) and the general fitness, rather than the global warming issue.

We should act, but not for the sake of global warming, if this is a cover to get something done, then hell the sea level will rise 400m by tommorow and are skin will melt by next week;). I fear however that it is not, and it would be better to state the truth, and argue for changes with a better argument.

Oh and America should not pussy out (neither should the others) on cutting emissions etc. Remember the smoking post a while ago? Redstar will...well you agreed we had a right to smoke free air as none smokers, and provisions should be made for both..well I feel the same about this, I choose not to drive although I am legally aloud and socially expected to do so. However I have to suffer as I walk by roads. I don't fill myself full of unnatural food, although school made me suffer...

Act now, and for the right reasons.

[redstar2000]

Is there anyone in this discussion that would like to argue that reducing carbon dioxide emissions--by, for example, increasing gas mileage--would be a "bad thing"?

Is there anyone who would want to argue that re-forestation would be a "bad thing"?

Is there anyone who would want to argue that substituting solar power for oil or natural gas where practical would be a "bad thing"?

None of those steps would be "free"...but the costs would hardly be significant. One or two wars could probably cover it easily.

Would anyone deny that such steps would alleviate "global warming" to some degree...if it really is a problem?

In other words, is this a scientific dispute or a dispute over an economic/political agenda?

As to the science of it all, we can only go by what we find credible based on the current state of our knowledge. The more extreme scenarios of global warming do not seem credible to me, period. Others think differently.

But if there's something else "behind" this discussion, let's bring it out into the open. Even if all the current literature on global warming were demonstrated to be "junk science", would that invalidate the practical measures suggested at the beginning of this post?

Aside from corporate profit, is there something to be gained from increasing the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide indefinitely?

Aside from corporate profit, is there something to be gained by chopping down every tree on the planet?

Aside from corporate profit, is there something to be gained by exhausting the supply of fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

In other words, is the argument only scientific on the surface (in which Stormin Norman could be right) but in substance an argument for the priority of corporate profits over the general environmental welfare of the planet...in which case, we know that Stormin Norman is bat-crap crazy?

What is really being discussed here?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:51 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Well I must say that if I had seen more of taht from SN and less *****ing about the nasty James I would be more impressed.

One of the reasons I attacked James is because he deleted this very post. This post was originally posted almost a year ago.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Any answer to redstar? I would say you won the science post, but as stated above it is the wrong kind of site;) lol