Global Warming [Archive] - Democracy Forums

KrAzY3

04-22-2006, 12:43 PM

We used to measure melting polar ice caps in feet per year, now it's miles. Hurricane and Tornado seasons have been getting longer and longer over the past 2 decades, and the storms themselves have been becoming more severe. All of this is a direct result of greenhouse gases and their effect on the environment. There really isn't a debate about that.

See, now this is when I started to get irritated. Is global warming a reality? It would appear that man is playing at least a smart part in what is going on. Reality is that we have no idea how large a part we are playing. One has to be reminded of the 70s ice age scare, we were told by scientists that things were getting colder and a ice age was impending. As we now believe, they were full of crap. As we kind of brush other "scares" under the rug like the ozone layer stuff (many always believed it was a natural occurrence and now you'll notice no one is even worried about it after it started repairing itself), we focus more intently on global warming.

I am afraid that because the heart of the message seems "good" we buy into it more as a religion than a science. Take this portion I quoted. It sounds good. Yet, I live in Mobile, Al. I've been through several hurricanes, I've watched more than my fair share of weather experts, The Weather Channel and so on. I've studied other hurricanes, occurrences and so on. The fact is that we are in a peak... unlike any we have seen since the 1960s. Or the early part of the century. This it nothing new or strange, the fact is we were in a ebb from the 70s until now, and a lot of junk scientists have used that partial data to claim things are on the rise. And here we have someone claiming that there isn't a debate, it has changed and we can't even argue about that! That, is just tossing science out the window. I've seen polls of weather experts, I've seen interviews with weather experts and the consensus is that this is not caused by global warming, but rather a weather cycle. Take for instance the last hurricane of the season. It grew over cool waters, no one could really figure out why. But you know what didn't cause it? Warmth! It was growing over cool waters! This was a strong indication that the weather systems and cycles were largely responsible. So, when you start just making these huge assumptions and leaving science behind you are making a huge mistake.

Now, back to global warming, the Kyoto treaty is and always was a farce. Some countries signing on have no intention of meeting the protocol. Hell, even Canada can't do it. In truth, this reminds me of something Kofi was talking about. He'd like for each country to get permits for pollution, they poorer countries could sell theirs to richer countries. Everyone is happy... err wait, that's like some giant socialistic scheme. First, they set the limits on only certain types of pollution (developing countries sometimes pollute like crazy, but they'd work to make sure only the types of pollution that wealthy nations have lots of count), then they strong arm other countries into paying the poor countries money. There is no less pollution, all they did was take money from rich countries. Kyoto, as I understand it proposes things that would cost trillions of dollars, to hypothetically lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree. And the kicker here is that some of the parties, the countries that are the real threats pollution wise will never even bother to follow it anyway. So, if global warming does exist... we're screwed and Asia is going to be the ones that do it to us in the long run, not Europe or the Americas.

So, is global warming a reality? I watched a program on it yesterday and the opening dialogue amused me. He said something along the lines of:
"we can say for certain that humans play at least a small part in these changes". Hmm, we're certain that we have a tiny bit to do with it? That's the reality of it though. We're running around like chicken little because we're pretty sure that we at least raised the temperature by a tenth of a degree. We're not sure how much the regular cycles have to do with the polar caps melting, or the hurricanes or the like but we are pretty sure we did raise things a good fraction of a degree. In response, we need to spend trillions to "fix" this, yet the problem is China won't give a damn and India won't give a damn and considering that is a third of the world's population right there we're still screwed eh?

Also, I want to address something else. America is not the great polluter that many people want to pretend we are. I think one reason people have become so interested in greenhouse gases is because they found something America does, for the time being make more of (although for the record Canada isn't far behind and they did sign Kyoto and are much smaller population wise). I've lived in Europe and witnessed black stuff falling from the sky on a regular basis. Soot? I suppose that's what it was, but it can't be healthy to breath that in on a regular basis. I was on the 6th story and you'd have to clean your windows on a regular basis because there was so much. Never saw that in America. The largest cloud of pollution in the world sits over Asia. It was caused by cows... The fact is that people pollute. America, in fact has been one of the first countries to introduce pollution standards in the like on many things. I'm a little tired of people pointing to Kyoto and using it bash America.

So, here's my summary:
1: Science is not a religion. We have to prove each thing we blame on global warming.
2: We should try to leave cleaner lifestyles. It shouldn't matter if we fear something or not, cleaner obviously makes sense.
3: We should not, however cripple our nations to try to do this. China will be more than happy to take up the slack if we negatively affect our industry.
4: The fact is that if we are in immediate danger, we are doomed anyway. China is developing rapidly and we all know they don't give a damn. We can not offset their pollution.
5: The only long term resolution is for us to not leave science behind and for us to make practical improvements. If we can make more efficient and cleaner fuels, for instance then we are moving in the right direction. But, the chicken little approach to this matter won't help a damn thing.

Alonzo

04-22-2006, 12:58 PM

The u.s. outputs the most greenhouse gasses in the world, and lags only behind australia per person.

And the reason the ozone hole healed itself was because CFCs, the main cause for the damage, were phased out.

Geologists can also tell previous levels of greenhouse gasses from rock layers and ice in the arctic. They can also tell the rate of increase.

Though global warming isn't always as smooth as one may thing. For example, ice sheets in antarctica, greenland, canada etc. have been melting. If a large ice sheet were to break off of greenland (which is considered very possible) it could cut off the warm water current, causing temperatures to drop in many areas, that is until the ice sheet itself melts.

KrAzY3

04-22-2006, 01:08 PM

The u.s. outputs the most greenhouse gasses in the world, and lags only behind australia per person.

Which is one reason I feel certain parties love to play up the global warming aspect. Of course, they won't mention that China isn't far behind (or the fact that the Chinese data is from 1994, meaning that they are most likely the largest producer of greenhouse gasses at present time). They also won't mention things like breathing the air in Mexico City for a day is like smoking a a pack of cigarettes. Or that a billion Indians burn cow dung every day, which is about the worst pollutant you can imagine, which in turn has created a massive migrating cloud of pollution.

Look, pollution is a problem and we need to address it. But, as I said we have to keep using science and stop with the knee jerk blame everything on global warming crap. We also have to keep a practical outlook and have practical resolutions, not the put the USA on the cross approach I seem to keep seeing. China can get away with releasing decade old data, and we buy into it. A hurricane forms over cool waters and we blame global warming. We have to use logic with this issue, I see a lot of opinions and ideals but the logic gets left behind sometimes.

sbannon

04-22-2006, 09:19 PM

I think the reality of this issue's politicization often gets missed, and that's sad because it allows the debate to become a wedge issue.

It isn't those who are most concerned about man's influence that have made this a political issue, it's those who would prefer to ignore it. They do so since it's easier to scare people about changes in their lifestyles that they can see and feel; then climate changes which won't be as apparent until it may be too late, and they do it because there's more profits today in staying the course. Look at who opposes environmental regulations and spends fortunes lobbying against them, pays for false reports to counter real scientific findings--look very closely. They're leaders of industry and politicians who've aligned themselves very closely with leaders of industry. It's a selfish camp with a jaded and opportunistic perspective.

We, as a society can only be led by the 'best' knowledge and 'best' science available to us today. We can't base decisions on what "may" or "may not" come to be in the future by divine interventions, we have to base decisions on the best information available today. Citing previous scares is a means of avoidance rather than addressing the issue.

All of our best knowledge and science tells us that over the past hundred and fifty years (a very short span in the geologic time scale) there has been a tremendous and rapid increase in greenhouse gasses. This super fast build-up is unprecedented in the planet's history. That's known to be so because we can and have measured the past build-ups and their relationships to the climate.

It's also a fact in the past hundred and fifty years that man's activities have brought about industry and product that pours greenhouse gasses into the air. As I said before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that connection.

Like I said earlier, we do not know what our impact on the climate will ultimately be, there's no history to study. That doesn't mean it's safe or in any way responsible to say the situation isn't as grave or even more grave than the loudest doom-sayers suggest. We simply don't know.

Our impact could very well be minuscule, or it could very well be explosive. It's an absolute uncertainty, so do we step into the dark unknown cautiously or do we tread out at full steam and just hope there's solid footing to be had?

As for China, when did it become okay to say America doesn't have to do the right thing if China or some other country doesn't do it first? That's an irritating argument I've heard far too frequently lately. When did America stop wanting to be the best? Be the leaders and the example for others to follow? Because every time someone says 'if they don't do it we don't have to' I feel a cold chill run down my spine from the lazy, ignorant idea that America should ever follow any other country's lead.

KrAzY3

04-22-2006, 11:16 PM

I find it interesting that you talk about this being politicized as though it is only one side of the issue doing that. There are political agendas in place here, and it is not just the business lobby. Although, for the record business has a lot to do with our wealth and quality of life. It is a give and take, we should clean things up but we shouldn't put ourselves in the poorhouse to do it. The reason I bring up China is because the world work' on supply and demand. If our industry is restricted, industry in other nations will take up the slack. Kyoto or any other regulations will not really work unless the entire planet is held to the same standard. Otherwise, we are just moving pollution around the planet, not preventing it. Essentially, it is like telling one store owner that it is harmful to sell beer. Ok, so he stops selling beer. The store next door doesn't care though, so he sells beer. The customers stop using the first store and go to the second and not only is just as much beer sold, but the first store goes out of business. This is part of the reality. We can not just prostrate ourselves because we think we might be part of a problem. Our actions have to be logical and practical.

The political aspects of this issue go both ways though. Certain parties are fond of demonizing America and this just gives them more fuel. As I alluded to Kofi would like to turn pollution into a tax on the wealthy nations. How is that not a political agenda? And once again, they overlook most types of pollution and restrict it to greenhouse gases. They love greenhouse gases because the richer countries tend to have more. In terms of pollution in general, as I've said Asia has more pollution problems than anyone else. But, that just won't do for the political agendas. Nor would mentioning that the nations that signed the Kyoto agreement are failing to abide by it. Instead, we use Kyoto like a club to beat America over the head with.

As I said before though, we should try to be cleaner. That is common sense. However, we shouldn't cripple ourselves to do it. We have to move in more practical ways, instead of restrictions we should focus on cleaner technologies. Instead of using junk science like measure hurricane activity since 1970 and falsely claiming hurricane activity is increasing to coincide with global warming, we should use real science to try and really interpret what is going on. Instead of making false claims and using it to fuel our arguments, we should stick to reality and logical as well as practical solutions to the matters at hand.

sbannon

04-23-2006, 01:28 AM

Your point on China is noted, but didn't address my question there. Do you really believe America should play follow the leader with China or any other country? Or, should America be the leader and set the bar higher for everyone else? As a proud, patriotic American I want to lead the pack--always.

Our measurement isn't what others are doing or not, it's what we're doing to set the example.

I agree there are those around the globe on both sides of the fence who would use the environment to push their own agendas, however in American politics it's the republican party which has traditionally twisted the issue (and the facts within it) like a pretzel to divide people, then again that follows the new republican political strategy, divide and conquer.

Want proof, look and see which side paid for false "scientific reports" to dispute global warming, then we can debate the junk science.

My position all along though, is simply that this isn't--and shouldn't be--a political issue at all. It's a humanitarian issue.

It also doesn't have to be an either/or between business and the environment. That's one of those scare tactics I was talking about earlier which was created and spread by republicans and industry over the past 15 years. Tell Americans that those evil liberals want to protect trees by putting Americans out of work. It's distorted half-truths being used to pervert the issue and manipulate people's opinions.

Will cleaning up our act hurt some industries? Certainly, but the point should be made that progress always closes one door while opening another. At one time every town had one or more blacksmiths who shoed horses, because horses were the primary method of transportation. Then cars came along and put most blacksmiths out of business, but created the automobile industry. It's a sort of social evolution that has always co-existed with progress.

So some industries are damaged or even deprecated by cleaner living and standards, but a host of other and new industries will grow and be created. It's the effect of progress and evolution, the strong (or better) survive.

Some current businesses will have to adjust for change, some will fold from change. Some current businesses will prosper with change, some new businesses will be born of change. As it always has been, and always will be.

And just to be clear, I'm not anti-business in any way. That would be silly since I've owned a small, but successful business for six years now. What I am, is pro-responsible business.

As for restrictions, it's the only way to effect real change in our society. You must make the change attractive through incentive and make refusal to change unattractive through penalty. That's the way everything happens in American business. To shift industry you must attach the shift to the bottom line.

KrAzY3

04-23-2006, 11:09 AM

My point about changes though, remains that it is pointless unless it brings about real change. If we can find a way to not hinder ourselves and become cleaner? By all means we should, but what I see potentially happening here is we just make it more lucrative for other countries to pollute. I could use another example, like selling cigarettes. Clearly, they are harmful. One can't debate that with any real credibility. However, if I owned a gas station I would have to sell them if I wanted to compete. The question does not just become should I not sell them, the question has to become what can I do to protect others as well as myself?

Is there a "real" resolution? Can a gas station be run without selling cigarettes? I'm sure some do, but I haven't found one yet. The problem then moves to the larger issues. Even though cigarettes cause health problems, should people still be allowed to smoke them? How can you prevent it, yada yada yada . What appears to have a simple resolution (just stop selling them) in fact is very complicated. Clearly, they pose a threat. Clearly, they are unhealthy. But, The problem can not be fixed by one gas station refusing to sell them. You could just end up going out of business and making another gas station richer? I certainly don't want us to do that.

This is a tricky and complex issue. It deals with industry, it deals with quality of life. It is easy to go ok we just have to cut pollution. Well, we have to look at the real impact of those actions. If you think America cutting pollution will make everyone follow us you're wrong. There are, and always will be plenty of countries that don't give a damn. Then what do we do? Wage war on them? Say, you're causing global warming so we'll nuke your ass! Wait, which is worse the fallout or the greenhouse gases?

This is a hell of a complicated issue. I don't want junk science on either side confusing the issue further. Nor, do I want us taking actions that only put us at a disadvantage without helping things. I don't profess to have the answer, but from my perspective I think the "key" lies in cleaner and more efficient methods of doing things as I have said. This to me is the clear path towards cleaning up the planet. If we come up with cleaner as well as cost effective methods, then we have something that can really work worldwide.

The bottom line though, is that people pollute. Short of killing them off by the billions you won't really have a resolution to cleaning up the planet.

Alonzo

04-23-2006, 12:44 PM

You seem to be arguing for an all or none solution. Pollution itself harms humans directly, through farming etc. Instead of saying "well, we can improve x amount" you don't want to do everything until it's perfect.

With global warming we have a very fast increase of greenhouse gases, something that there isn't really a history for barring a major event (asteroid for example). The very thing that this should be causing is occuring at the same time as greenhouse gasses have increased, and this thing hasn't occured previously in this fashion.

These changes aren't quite unprecedented in and of themselves, but they are without having a corresponding natural event.

There are tipping points on earth. It's like someone hanging on a tree branch. It seems fine and then all of a sudden it snaps.

Though the thing with the hurricanes was the frequency of high level hurricans in relation to low level ones, not so much that we simply had powerful ones.

KrAzY3

04-23-2006, 08:23 PM

I'm not arguing for an all or none solution, I'm just arguing for something that works. I just don't think you can pass a lot of laws and restrictions, then think the world is better off. We can debate the impact of greenhouse gases, then debate the impact on the temperature, then debate the impact of rising temperature. I'm trying to avoid that entire part of the debate. I think the debate should stick with what is reasonable and effective. I want to reduce all pollution, if we "fix" the greenhouse gas problem, we still have a billion Indians burning cow dung. We still have a growing, migrating cloud of pollution. We still have people in some dense cities wearing masks, etc...

I don't think we can limit this debate to greenhouse gases, nor can we limit our resolutions to what we view as the richer countries. These problems are worldwide and I don't think people even realize how bad it is some places. I want us to work on technology that both works better and is cleaner as well. I don't want us fixating on one form of pollution either because that's like putting all our effort into curing one illness and ignoring the others. Pollution is a problem and in fact we've let the greenhouse gas issue divert our attention from other growing problems.

Take a look at this chart of pollution:
http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session4/27/citydiff.htm

Los Angeles is known for it's pollution. We know about the smog and so on. Now, notice that Beijing and Mexico City both have much higher Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide levels. These are immediate health risks and growing risks. For us to ignore these issues, and many other environmental issues to fixate on one thing is something I also see as being problematic. It also reminds us that you essentially trade one form of pollution for another as you become increasingly wealthy.

Hell, look at this thing:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041217100237.htm

Pollution is a growing problem. I know that. Does pollution have a real resolution? I'm not sure, even as the richer countries might work to clean things up, the developing countries will become industrialized and in the early stages in particular they will pollute at elevated rates, etc...

I'm not saying this requires a all or nothing approach. I am suggesting we try to deal with pollution across the board. Kyoto, Kofi's suggestions, etc... specifically demonize one form of pollution. While that might currently be the greatest threat, we're risking not only just moving greenhouse gas pollution around the globe, but rather just encouraging other forms of pollution. Neither is a real resolution.

I contend, that instead of these silly agreements and trying to scare people into thinking one way or the other, we put the effort into becoming more advanced and in turn cleaner. Sure, cleaner fuels... all for it. Sure, develop better materials. Etc... all for it. I just don't want us to get trapped into thinking that undercutting ourselves and passing a few laws will really fix anything. Advancements are the only things that will fix anything long term. Don't think it is as simple as a few laws or new fuels. Believe me, if we stop using gas, then developing countries will just get it cheaper and use it even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't find alternatives, it means that our alternatives have to be financially viable. Doing what Europe does, and taxing the hell out of gas, for instance won't fix anything. Doing what Brazil did and mandating they use a certain amount of palm oil won't fix anything (forests are being cut down to meet the demand and that is threatening the forests... ooops). We wanted to move away from paper bags because they were cutting down forests. Now, people are worried about the impact of all those plastic bags.

We have to see the big picture and find real practical resolutions to any pollution issue. Scaring people, junk science and even many well meaning plans have to be practical. As I've said the only thing I see that is a real resolution is providing viable, cleaner resolutions. That's it... otherwise at best we're just setting the timer on the bomb back a bit, that's all.

Labrocca

04-24-2006, 12:08 AM

I saw today that the US accounts for 25% of all Oil usage in the world yet only 20% of the pollution output. Most studies feel the US is a leader when it comes to pollution and environment. Of course the media doesn't wany anyone to know that since donations to environmental groups might diminish. I know pollution exists but as stated...even if we cut our pollution in half...China would quickly move up in it's usage and output.

I feel the best approach is technology. It's really what has pushed America to #1. The past 100+ years has been all about new inventions. If we spent the resources to push new and renawable energy resources I think the rest of the world would follow us. I think it's lame excuse about China and India...we should do what's right here. If Bush felt doing the right thing in Iraq was important despite the rest of the world..then why can't we take the same stance toward energy and environment?

I am split about Global Warning but still...anyone can go outside and see that we are refacing the Earth one acre at a time. No one can dispute the effects of our growth on trees, animals, and water resources. If we fixed those problems I have a feeling that the Global Warming issue would become a mute point.

I feel I am a consvative but if I was to lean left on any issue it would be environment. Fuck people...save the trees.

I saw a statistics that said 12,000 trees were used for EVERY Sunday New York Times edition....that's just astonishing to me. In a world where information can be typed into a computer or PDA. I hope one day we can eliminate 50% or more of our printed material.

bah...

sbannon

04-24-2006, 01:20 PM

Actually, America's population, which accounts for just about 5% of the people on Earth, is putting almost 25% of the CO2 into the atmosphere each year. We're 1/20th of the population causing 1/4th of the problems.

Technology, existing and emerging, is definitely the key. Do you know that a single solar collector array of 100 hundred square miles could power the entire U.S.?

That's not futuristic science fiction, it's a reality that could have already been completed. The collector could be built in the Arizona or Nevada Desert and would provide more energy than our nation would need or could use. No more burning coal.

And while it sounds like too big of a project, 100 square miles, it's really just a pin-head on the map. The problem isn't that we can't do it, the problem is that there's been no incentive to do it from our leadership--either side of the aisle so far.

That's just one problem, there are many contributing factors to global warming which require many individual answers. Each small step is just that, one step in what's going to be a long journey.

It does, however, require leadership and regulation to guide us though. And that doesn't automatically equate into a negative for business. Portland, Oregon is a great example. In the early 90's they began a Green City project, promoting more efficient energy uses and technologies. Requiring developers seeking public funding to meet certain green standards in their projects. The results: they've reduced their yearly CO2 emissions by about 13% and grew their local workforce by over 15%. Buildings built since the project began had about an 8% increase in initial construction costs, but have been rewarded with up to a 60% savings each year in energy and environmental control (heating/air-conditioning) costs, meaning there's giant long term benefits to building efficient projects. It makes good sense from a business perspective to build in this manner.

Restaurants, pizza shops and the like use the hot exhaust from their ovens, which in the past sent tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, they now use it to heat their building's hot water tanks. Reducing the amount of CO2 from the ovens from reaching the air and eliminating the burning of natural gas in their hot water tanks, which saves them money and reduces emissions further. Again, a wise choice from a business stand-point. If I can spend $10,000 today on a project that saves me $15,000 or more over the next few years and is good for the environment I'll jump on it every time as a business owner. I can't get that kind of return from any bank.

These types of changes, on a grander scale could easily come about, would ultimately grow the economy and workforce, and have a huge impact on the global warming process. But again, it takes a combination of incentives and penalties through legislation to bring it about. Portland did it locally, it was a risk, there was a chance that it could hurt the local economy, but the exact opposite has proved true. Imagine if the entire U.S. went the same route, led by Washington, and reduced our nation's CO2 emissions by almost 13%, or even just 10%? It would nearly cut in half the amount of pollution we're currently dumping into the atmosphere.

Now, KrAzY3 is correct, China and other nations wouldn't simply follow us for the sake of following us into a cleaner future.

However, the more we commit to developing clean alternatives to fossil fuels the cheaper those alternatives will become, and China and other nations are going to use the cheapest energy sources available as they grow. So, our role in leadership can have a global impact on what other nations do in the future.

A good example is solar energy. 20 years ago it cost over $750 per foot of solar collecting panel, now it's under $35 per foot because companies in the private sector took it upon themselves to invest in the technology and have refined it to make each panel less costly to produce and more efficient at gathering and converting the solar energy. Imagine how cheap it would be today if there had been a little more momentum provided from Washington? They've gone half way here, providing incentives to develop the technologies, but failed to provide penalties for not using them.

If regulations required the use of solar energy in industry, even on a small scale, you would see newer and cheaper mass-production methods already in place which would have driven the cost down even further than it already is.

I think trying to address the entire issue, across the board as KrAzY3 suggests, is a self-limiting approach. The issue is too large to attack on just one front or all at once. There are simply too many contributing factors. It's a race that, like any long race, must be taken one step at a time.

When you look at it with the idea of only doing something that addresses the whole issue and all of it's individual problems and hot spots at once, it can begin to look overwhelming and further complicate already complicated efforts to reach international movements.

But when you address the individual problem areas one at a time, they become easier to tackle and with each victory you prolong the amount of time you have to combat the rest.

Labrocca

04-24-2006, 03:07 PM

Excellent post Sbannon and I can't agree more. Very very good post.

KrAzY3

04-25-2006, 04:57 PM

Here's a big problem I have with the entire issue, and a problem that I specifically have with people like sbannon.

I do not doubt that your intentions are good, but yet again I see you making misleading statements. You made a false claim concerning hurricane seasons and now you say:
"Actually, America's population, which accounts for just about 5% of the people on Earth, is putting almost 25% of the CO2 into the atmosphere each year. We're 1/20th of the population causing 1/4th of the problems."

That sounds bad, and yes it does represent a problem. But the reason you and so many others like to specifically target not only greenhouse gases but CO2 in relation to the US is because that is the greatest source of US greenhouse gas emissions.

1: CO2 accounts for 80% of the United States greenhouse gas emissions.
2: CO2 accounts for 60% of worldwide emissions.
3: How does that make us 1/4 of the problem? You're using very creative math.

Now, given the fact that we account for over 26% percent of the world's oil consumption, one can easily arrive to the conclusion that we are in fact a bit cleaner than most countries in relation to our use. Not only that, but by claiming some sort of disproportionate polluting you are encouraging people to believe we are somehow less clean with our energy usage. That is false, we just happen to use more energy. Finally, by quoting off the percentage of CO2 usage exclusively, and via your wording you are making the misleading notion that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that matters. That is also false (once again conceding that greenhouse gases are in fact having a significant impact on the world's temperature).

The United States is unique in the fact that we have a great deal of rural America that still has a high standard of living. We don't ride carts pulled by donkeys, we don't have to hike from place to place. We have cars, and once again that goes back to a quality of life issue. Yes, we have to look into cleaner methods, but you're not going to take our cars away and you're not going to really clean the planet up by creating lower demand for oil either.

You quote some methods for building and so on that you say are in fact cheaper. Good, I've said a few times that things like that are key. I disagree with the need to legally mandate a lot of this though, especially if there is a risk that it hinders us. If it really is better, the private sector will end up using it. If it isn't really better, the private sector will figure that out as well. I have a serious problem with misguided laws and notions with messed up priorities. Can you build a 100 square mile solar panel? I don't know, the materials required would be insane and I wonder the impact that could have. This thing would be the largest thing ever built. Sounds like a good idea but I fear the logistics are not so simple. I know someone that worked on a energy farm, it takes a look to keep this stuff up. I applaud it, but I try to understand the other factors coming into play. Take for instance, the project to build windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. Mind you, this is the state that keeps electing John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. People are resisting them because it would ruin their view... and this is the most liberal part of America. It is not a simple issue and the fact is that people are reluctant on a lot of issues. Not to justify your reluctance mind you, but you can't force it down their throat. People vote, and if you try to force more than they care for on them, they'll just change who is making the rules.

I also fear backlash on tight restrictions, not from voters but from the economy and the Eco-system. As I pointed out, we were worried about our forests, so we pushed for the use of plastic bags. The thing is, trees are biodegradable. They are a renewable resource. Plastic bags do not fall under this category. What we have done is potentially take one small problem and turn it into a giant problem. I pointed out what happened in Brazil. They mandated a certain amount of palm oil be used in their gasoline. It shot demand up so high that deforestation is becoming a huge problem. For years we have talked about the importance of the rain forests. We are now losing them due to concern over global warming, is that fixing a problem or just making one problem bigger and another smaller? Or take a look at New Orleans, they wanted to build a bigger levee leading into Lake Pontchartrain. The idea was to protect the area from storm surge. It met resistance from people that feared the impact on shell fish. The damage to the Eco-system in the area, through spills and garbage and so on far exceed the damage that would have been caused to the shellfish. Not to mention the financial and human losses. We can not push blindly forward, it HAS to be practical and unfortunately laws and bureaucracy rarely are.

I continue to be irked by people that put America as the only villain in the greenhouse gas issue. The fact is we are cleaner than a lot of countries, we just have more consumption. Our air quality in even our dirtiest cities is better than many other cities and our average city's air quality is better than the average European city. Our country was one of the first to pass emission standard. Even on the issue of greenhouse gases (which remains a point of contention, even in this thread I've seen the argument made that the issue wasn't really that bad, that a small cut in emissions could fix the problem) our country continues to have plans to reduce emissions. Both on a state-wide and federal level. Kyoto is bullshit. Plain and simple. I'm tired of hearing about it. China and India for example, are exempt. They signed it, but they are exempt. The second biggest cause of greenhouse gases (China might in fact by number one now) is exempt. One third of the world's population and Kyoto ignores them. The idea is that instead of trying to get everyone to clean up their act, they just try to get the rich countries (America in particular) to reduce emissions. A temporary fix at best and entirely unreasonable.

We should live cleaner lives. We should also find a balance. I lived in Germany for a year.
A: It was dirtier. As I said before soot literally fell from the sky.
B: The use of cars was discouraged. They taxed the hell out of gas. They also had a double standard because diesel (dirtier than regular gas) was taxed less. If you owned a diesel car you were taxed more per year. This was so that the trucks could function, and keep polluting and the average Joe was discouraged from using and owning a car.
C: Everything had to be sorted. You had to pay for yellow bags, which took certain types of trash. Then you had to run all glass and plastic and so on to big bins. Biodegradable garbage also had to go in different (tiny) trash can. Was this a good plan? Perhaps but it was a huge pain in the ass. Put these restraints on a America and they might just go bury stuff in their backyard (yards are not very common in many parts of Europe).
D: As I said before, in most of Europe air conditioning just doesn't exist. Central air is not common. Even hospitals didn't have it. Believe you me, this was horrid. A heat wave hit Europe when I was there and literally, tens of thousands of people died from the heat. But sure, they don't consume as much energy per person.

We have to understand all sides of the issue. Cleaner living? Good, but I'd rather us make it easier to live a cleaner life than to place restrictions. As I have pointed out these restrictions can in the long run make things worse anyway. I do not want to see America made into the scapegoat on the global warming issue. The hurricanes hit and I talked to a couple Europeans ill-informed enough to try and blame America for the hurricanes that hit it. This is a damned insulting mentality and the fact is there is no evidence at all to conclude that global warming had anything to do with it. It is these mentalities that hold America to one standard and places the blame on us while giving China, Mexico and so on a free pass that really piss me off. Sure, work on the problems. But understand this is a complicated global issue and there are no simple resolutions. I do not suggest we do all or nothing, I suggest we don't do anything unless we know it is both practical and effective. I suggest we do not act out of ignorance and good intentions, but rather from a informed and pragmatic view.

sbannon

04-25-2006, 06:36 PM

Gee KrAzY3, I'm sorry if I irk you, but let me clear up an inaccurate misunderstanding you have with my statements; they are based upon pure fact and not "fake science" or "creative math".

The following quote comes directly from the U.S. Dept. of Energy's web site:
The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuelsSource page:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

As for my comments on hurricanes, again from pure fact--as stated by the U.S. government. I quote:
"What we found was rather astonishing," said Georgia Tech's Peter Webster. "In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year globally. Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally."
This isn't an odd anomaly or fluke, it's a trend of hurricanes becoming more powerful. Hurricanes are fueled by surface waters, rising surface water temperatures means stronger hurricanes. Again, I'll quote:
The average annual number of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

According to a September 15 U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) press release, the change occurred as global sea-surface temperatures increased over the same period.

Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) studied the number, duration and intensity of hurricanes worldwide from 1970 to 2004.
Source page:
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Sep/19-443152.html

I don't just throw crap out there and hope someone believes me. My information doesn't come from off-the-wall zealots with personal agendas to further.

Also, at no time did I call America a villain and hope that wasn't directed at me. If you read my postings carefully you'll see that I'm calling on America to be the leader it should be here. Nothing more and nothing less.

You can twist the facts to fit your argument if you like, but they are the facts none the less. Dismissing or distorting them is nothing less than burying our heads in the sand. Personally, I feel a responsibility to my children and grandchildren to ensure they inherit a better world than I did.

KrAzY3, I don't understand your position when it comes to holding America to higher standards. Why do you object so much to America leading the world and setting the higher standard? As a patriot I see this as the only noble direction for us. Do you prefer to see us trailing the pack? To me, if you don't want America to be the example for others to aspire to it can only be 1) because you're anti-America or 2) you're complacent and lazy. Which is it?

forest_ranger254

04-25-2006, 07:25 PM

what is the hubbub about this "hole." according to what I understand about the ozone layer, is it isn't a layer more than it is an inoccuous cloud. everyone knows that gas is constantly moving, so this means that the cloud is getting thicker and thicker everywhere. well, it just so happens that in this one place over Antarctica, every ten years, the cloud moves enough to form a hole that is actually getting SMALLER as time goes. it closes after a short time and doesn't show up again. I noticed when I was reading reports on the ozone hole, the checks that scientists that believe it is there occur at the same rate, every ten years.

another thing about the accumulation of carbon. the human race, in all of its years on earth, through biological processes and industrial, even through the 1952 London crisis, has released less than .01 percent of the carbon released in a single volcanic explosion. does anyone think we are really making a difference with the carbon layer? I mean, come on.

another thing, the environmentalists are actually CAUSING global warming. we all know that anything that can reflect heat on one side will reflect heat on the other, well, since the carbon is being reduced, this caused the heat being reflected AWAY from the earth by carbon to come to earth. the trend with global warming has DIRECTLY coincided with the rise of emissions controls. think of it, the ozone does the same thing the carbon does. it reflects sunlight, radio and microwaves and a bit of UV rays, and HEAT goes with the sunlight. it reflects one way, so it must reflect the other. well, that means that it reflects heat that is radiating from the earth just like the carbon. matter of fact, it reflects heat at a faster rate than carbon, which makes it ideal as a protective layer from the sun.

now, I ain't saying this stuff is healthy. I wouldn't go outside right now and suck on my tailpipe. it just isn't helping us to try and reduce what we add when it isn't doing a darn bit of good.

KrAzY3

04-26-2006, 11:38 AM

I said several times that the hurricane report was based on faulty information because the data started in the 70s.

Hurricanes are caused by a variety of factors, while temperature is one of them it is not the main factor. Pressure systems and so on move things around. In the 1970s we were at a ebb in activity. The reason it is faulty to use data from the 70s to now is because that is tracking a ebb to a peak. You see in the 1960s we were at a peak. If you tracked even from the 60s to now you wouldn't see this so called increase. Even beyond that, if you go back you'll see that every 30-40 years we have a peak. We're in that peak. I've watched tons of reports, studied data and so on. Anything started in the 70s was either done out of stupidity or to intentionally make the numbers look like a drastic increase. That is because they are tracking the low point to the high point. They have to leave out the 60s for this to work though because it was a high point.

I've had this debate before, about this report before so I'll just toss one of my old replies out there verbatim:
I did a search and I'm going to debunk the "science" behind the studies that blame global warming.

""Hurricanes in the strongest categories (4 and 5) have almost doubled in number" from 1970 to 2004"

Or how about this from a MIT professor:

"Part of it I think we do understand: that when we looked at the whole issue of wind speeds, we didn't think about the issue of the duration of events. And this particular metric that's gone up 70 or 80 percent is also depending on the duration of storms, and that duration has gone up quite a bit. It's gone up about 50 percent in the last 30 years."

Now, I looked up several things asserting that hurricanes are increasing and getting bigger because of global warming. I noticed a weird trend.

They all started their data in the 70s. Or likewise limited it to the last 30 years (yup the 70s). Why is that?

Well, the 70s was a downswing. You see if you started your data earlier the junk science wouldn't work.

For example, lets look at this chart which was made for children (hard to get confused):

http://www.fema.gov/kids/hurr_big.htm

What do we see? Hmm... we see three of the biggest ever occurred in the 60s. We also see that the 70s-90s only contained ONE signifigant storm. We also see that the early part of the century had ample massive storms, relatively much more devastating to what we are seeing now.

The science is not there to support these assertions. Only junk science which intentionally leaves out data can "prove" such assertions.

I understand that you might have been honestly fooled by them using 35 years and 1970 as a point to start the study. That is junk science at it's best and that is something that I have a huge problem with. If we can't use real science we can't have any real conclusions. Any report that excludes the 60s in particular left out the most important part. It would have demonstrated a normal downswing and upswing and you know what? Then we couldn't blame America for the hurricanes that hit them! Then we couldn't blame global warming and then our agendas would be shot all to hell. I'm in the heart of hurricane country. I, went through Katrina, Ivan and so on. I know what causes them, I know the history I know the dangers and so on. I've watched more reports about them than you can imagine. I also saw the upswing be predicated by several weather experts, not based on any rising temperatures but based on the storm systems. We have measured a increase in greenhouse gases since we started measuring in 1958. I'll end this particular debate the same way I ended the last one. You show me any data, dating back to 1958 (the point at which we can measure the increase in greenhouse gases) that shows a clear upswing in hurricane activity in relation to the increase in gases and I'll concede right away. As it stands though, no report that didn't intentionally leave out data can prove that. In fact, it would seem to prove that global warming had nothing to do with it since from the 60s until this decade we went into a dormant period..

Secondly, it wasn't the quote about 25% that was getting to me. You claimed we were "1/4" of the problem. Umm what problem? Global warming? Once again CO2 accounts for 60% of the world's emissions. Even if we accounted for 25% of CO2 emissions we still wouldn't be "1/4 of the problem". That is a misleading statement.

Finally, to kind of sum up my reservations I watched CNN a bit yesterday and I saw them praise Brazil several times for "energy independence". They, along with Europe and so on have mandated a certain amount of gas have bio fuels in them as well. A very well meaning idea. We don't want the global warming to get us! As I said before though, the problem is this is endangering the world's forests. It is making a spike in demand and unlike logging in America, for instance (which makes it a priority to plant new trees) the effects of this new wave of deforestation are likely to threaten the world's forests. It is well meaning, but this also hits at the heart of the issue for me. Do we want to trade our rain forest to hypothetically lower the temperature a fraction of a degree?
Here's another report I used in a previous discussion that touches on this subject a bit: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20

At what point do we find a balance? I don't claim to know, but I do know junk science and poorly thought out plans seem to have a adverse effect on things. You obviously have strong beliefs on this issue. I've presented something that throws a wrench in the entire argument you just made. How you respond will be one of two ways. You will go hmm, perhaps I did get something wrong and rethink things a bit. Which is all I ask for. Or, like some others you will just dismiss what I said and say you're right anyway. That is the reaction that I fear most from people. That people that will just toss facts aside if they do not fit their current ideals. That is when we go from science and logic to religion and ideals. If we do the latter, we can not better our world. A blind approach will result in misguided actions.

sbannon

04-26-2006, 03:01 PM

Okay, I see why you're arguing the hurricane research, but I think you may be misguided about why the reports all start in the 1970's. It has nothing to do with selectively stopping (or starting) only where the data supports Global Warming. To even suggest that is actually to accuse all of the scientists who study weather and climate of some grand conspiracy.

1970 was the year we first began global satellite hurricane tracking and intensity records. That's why scientists use the statistical data from 1970 on, because it's the only accurate data which exists and scientists tend to prefer forming their study models and conclusions on accurate data.

Now, if you'd prefer to use non-recorded, hear-say tales of hurricanes prior to 1970 to base your conclusions on, be my guest, but understand that this is exactly what you're doing. Prior to 1970, hurricanes were measured and reported with "best guess" meteorology. It's only since 1970 that we have detailed, accurate data to work from, and that data shows a co-trend between the warming of surface waters and the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes. It's 2 plus 2 equals 4 math that only gets confusing when you attempt to introduce the inaccurate data from pre-1970.

I also think you're missing the big picture on bio fuels. There's a large lack of knowledge on this so I don't blame you, but the fact is bio fuels can be created from every day waste products, which actually addresses 2 problems at once when you think about it. That production is more costly than the use of certain natural oils right now, but as with everything, when demand increases the industry will find cheaper ways to mass produce from the cheapest and most readily available components, common waste. When the scale tips and it becomes equal or cheaper in cost to use waste products instead of farming oils the usage will shift as well.

KrAzY3

04-26-2006, 04:50 PM

I live just outside Mobile, Al. I lived in Mobile for 17 years and was fortunate enough (sarcasm) to have moved back here a couple of years ago. We know our damned hurricanes unfortunately. Camille, for instance made Katrina look tiny. You know when it hit? 1969. And believe you me, people that lived through it have some real stories to tell. We could and did measure many things about it, including wind speed. Camille was measured on land at 190 MPH (there is even speculation by some that gusts reached 220 mph). Katrina peaked on land at 153. That is a whole world of difference. Any report starts one year after, ignoring the hurricanes of 1960 are flawed. As I said, hurricanes work in ebbs and peak. We are in a peak, this is a peak we knew was coming. Not because of global warming, the same guys that said it wasn't global warming accurately predicted this peak before it hit. This is science, you have to use all the information available, not be selective about it. You dismiss the science we used to track hurricanes up until 1970. Dude, that's tossing a hell of a lot out the window. We flew airplanes into them, we tracked them, we measured their impact. Calling that guessing while clinging to faulty science really doesn't lend you much credibility.

Crediblity, that's a big part of the issue to me. Global warming is ambiguous. What can we track? Well, we can measure the rise in so called greenhouse gases. We can also measure the rise in temperature which these gasses could hypothetically cause. However, we have a hard time deciding what the impact was. Even in this thread, people concerned about global warming expressed some uncertainty, even downplaying the impact. We have a lot to learn, and we have a lot to prove. Each time we use bs to prove it, we hurt our credibility. We feed the people that are hesitant to buy into it. We don't fully understand natural cycles, and you know what? We never will until we start using real, reliable science. Not science that starts the year after the second largest hurricane ever. That's selective, and that's not science.

To give a example, it is a little like to case for the Iraq war. I believe the people behind it had good intentions. I also believe the end result could be positive. I also believe there did appear to be a threat. Saddam acted like he had something to hide, etc... the symptoms appeared to be there. But, in our attempt to justify our actions we dismissed anything contrary and leaned on unreliable sources. This affected our actions and our words. I don't want to see something similar. People acting with "good intentions" but without honesty and integrity. We can not present a argument that is 80% fact and 20% bullshit and think we've really accomplished anything. We shouldn't have to fool people into believing certain things to reach a certain end. We need to be honest and have integrity with this issue. We also, like the Iraq war have to see not just the desirable result (getting rid of Saddam or lowering greenhouse gases) but the potential negative results as well.

Like, the bio fuels. Yes, a lot of politicians imagined using certain products like waste or corn or what not. The problem is that isn't what is happening. Poor countries are destroying their forests and they do it on the cheap. This is not a tiny problem, it is a growing problem and it is a perfect example of us thinking a law can fix a problem. Let this go unchecked for a while and global warming might be the least of our concerns.

I want well thought out, logical and pragmatic ideas. Past this point I am just repeating myself. Hydrogen, to me sounds like it has great potential as a fuel. Making buildings with greater energy conservation sounds like a great idea. Making materials that are more earth friendly sounds great (here's a tidbit, did you know that in Holland they still use those Styrofoam containers for burgers? America and most of Europe got rid of them because they were supposed to be really bad for the planet, but Holland about as hippy and earth friendly as you can get still uses them... may be we overlooked something important?). Passing laws that could backfire on us? Doesn't sound so great. I made the argument for potentially causing greater harm, I made the argument for just helping other countries to pollute and I also made the argument for us basing our actions on potentially flawed information. Does that mean we should do nothing? Of course not, but it does mean we should be damned careful with our actions. When you pass a law, you have to insure that it is fair, practical and will accomplish the desired result. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

forest_ranger254

04-26-2006, 10:02 PM

sbannon

04-27-2006, 12:32 PM

What I said--and what's agreed upon by all who study climatology--was that pre-1970 data isn't sufficiently accurate to base trend-models from. All we have is from 1970 to today, and if you'll permit me a Rumsfeld/Iran war analogy of my own here, scientists can only work from the data they have and trust, not the data they'd like to have.

Yes, pre-1970 storms were measured, but those measurements were made with less accurate instruments and built from formulas which were based on faulty beliefs of the time. This is what was learned when advanced satellite tracking became available and that's why scientists won't include this data into their models and conclusions.

Also, you can point out single incidents over time of giant storms, but this doesn't counter the claim that the number of category 4 and 5 storms has increased. That's like looking at one single auto accident where a woman was driving one of the cars and deducing that all women are bad drivers. You have to look at the bigger picture to find trends, not a single season here and there.

In addition, I think you're basing a lot of your position on personal experience, you've mentioned being from the Gulf coast twice now. That's fine if you keep in mind that the Atlantic only accounts for about 11% of the hurricanes each year. When you look at the global storms and not just the Atlantic's then even going beyond 1970 and using the less-accurate data shows a recent upswing in the number of large yearly storms.

Yes, you can look at just the Atlantic basin storms data (based on the AMO) for the past hundred years and see an ebb-and-flow effect with 30 year cycles, but globally this isn't the case. In the other ocean basins like the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, there just aren't such long-term cycles, yet there is a recent trend of more powerful storms in alignment with the warming surface waters.

I'm seeing a trend here, you base your hurricane arguments on the narrow perspective of just your experience, you base your bio fuels arguments on just the short term effects... as I said, the more that's committed to bio fuels the cheaper and more efficient using waste products will become. At some point the balance will tip to favor using waste products over agricultural oils and that's what will become the normal. Nobody will continue destroying lands to create bio fuels when it's cheaper to use waste products that also address a secondary problem as well, thus making the entire process more efficient.

You say you want "well thought out, logical and pragmatic ideas", the long goal of those who favor bio fuels (like myself) is exactly that. I think while you say you want this and that, what you in-fact are actually arguing in favor of is doing nothing.

Your tidbit about the Styrofoam containers is nice, and in-fact addresses forest_ranger254's earlier question about the ozone layer. Since over 180 nations have signed the Montreal Protocol in 1997, the mass reduction of CFC's being poured into the atmosphere by a majority of industrialized nations has accounted for the Ozone layer's rebound. It's sort of like a stab wound, if you leave the knife in the wound it won't heal, but when you remove it the blood clots and the skin bonds. The Ozone layer is a skin around the planet.

As for the comment about passing laws, that's a lofty ideology but wrong. They don't need to be fair or practical; those are relative terms based upon the beholders bias. Legislation only needs to accomplish the desired result when the desired result is determined to be the correct path for the greater good. I'm sure the companies making spray can products and refrigerators thought that banning the cheaper CFC's was unfair and impractical, but we see today that it was indeed for the greater good and is having a successful impact.

forest_ranger254

04-27-2006, 03:10 PM

Your tidbit about the Styrofoam containers is nice, and in-fact addresses forest_ranger254's earlier question about the ozone layer. Since over 180 nations have signed the Montreal Protocol in 1997, the mass reduction of CFC's being poured into the atmosphere by a majority of industrialized nations has accounted for the Ozone layer's rebound. It's sort of like a stab wound, if you leave the knife in the wound it won't heal, but when you remove it the blood clots and the skin bonds. The Ozone layer is a skin around the planet.

As for the comment about passing laws, that's a lofty ideology but wrong. They don't need to be fair or practical; those are relative terms based upon the beholders bias. Legislation only needs to accomplish the desired result when the desired result is determined to be the correct path for the greater good. I'm sure the companies making spray can products and refrigerators thought that banning the cheaper CFC's was unfair and impractical, but we see today that it was indeed for the greater good and is having a successful impact.

Not entirely. if ozone were able to have a hole in it, it would be a layer like a blanket. Ozone is a gas. It is constantly moving, constantly changing, and shifting. The hole's size change directly correlates to the rise of global warming. As the hole gets smaller, the temperatures have risen, the natural disasters have become more dangerous, and the more the environmentalists whine. They are the reason we are so energy-dependant on Iraq. What the human race has let out in the way of CFC's in its entire existence on earth is less than the amount released in a SINGLE volcanic eruption. This is to say, if the earth can handle the massive amounts of carbon in the many volcanic eruptions it has experienced, what good is it going to do to lessen ours. Let us open up the Alaskan and Nebraskan oil reserves. let us pump our own land and get these darn prices down. Either that or start mass-producing ethanol and make it our primary source of fuel. I am not worried about what another years contribution of .0001% of the CFCs released naturally into the air is going to do. it will do nothing.

Courtesy, your local supporter of the USGS.
William R Sculley

sbannon

04-28-2006, 09:53 AM

KrAzY3

04-28-2006, 12:22 PM

Ok, let me be as basic as I could.

The 1960s for instance has 3 category 4 and 5 hurricanes hit America, three of the largest hurricanes ever to hit. He leaves that data out.

You don't give a rats ass about the science or explanation though, that is obvious. This is a religion to you, a blind faith and you will stick with it and believe what ever fits your religion. I show you facts and figures and you retort with they had no idea what was going on. No, your scientist that limits his studies to 1970 in a low period of activity has no idea what was going on.

Let me show you a detailed analysis that shows exactly what is really going on. Now, for people like you it is easy to understand because it has pictures! As I keep saying and you keep missing is that hurricane activity goes in cycles! That's why I keep mentioning my knowledge of hurricanes. I'm getting really frustrated because the point keeps going over your head.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp

Read the charts. Hell, you've put me in the mood to be sarcastic so here you go buuuddy...

http://www.wunderground.com/education/indian_cat45.gif
Here's one of those nice 1970 charts. The sky is falling the sky is falling!

http://www.wunderground.com/education/nwpac_cat45.gif
Damnit I said 1970! Is no one listening, there goes all my hard work... :(

http://www.wunderground.com/education/nepac_cat45.gif
Ignore the other chart, this is the one we're using to try and trick people.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/atl_cat45.gif
35 years! 1970! Are you not listening, that's umm faulty data.

Now, if you read the report and look at the charts and stop being a close minded zealot, you will see that hurricane activity clearly went down for a period of time all over the world. Now, the interesting thing about this is it flies in the face of people claiming global warming. The other interesting thing is that it happens to serve anyone that limits their research to 1970 because they can use this period of low activity to make false claims that we are seeing a unusual rise.

Look dude, you lost this one. Keep arguing it and I will lose all respect for you. You have good intentions but if you and people like you want to make laws based on ignorance and faulty science you're not going to go without me calling you out on it. I still hope you'll go ok, hey I was wrong about that the claims are exaggerated. Unfortunately I think you'll just keep trying to throw the science of the past out the window, as though we couldn't friggin' measure wind speed until 1970 or something.

Now, is this all to say that global warming could not possibly have a impact? Of course it doesn't. What it does say, however is that the report that all these claims are being based on (I keep seeing 1970 and 35 years over and over) is faulty. Even you can see that the period was a low point, and even you can see that prior to that we had a peak as well. How you can chart a ebb to a peak and then use that to claim a rise is insane. It is like going out on one day, measure to water levels just offshore morning and night and then going OMG! Global warming is causing the water to rise by several feet in one day! Global warming might very well be causing the water to rise, but we have to factor the tides in first. Just like this is a damned cycle and the science makes this obvious. Without factoring in the cycle first you can't come up with any relevant data. Otherwise I'm done with you, the charts say everything. Clearly 1970-80 was a low point. Clearly the 50-60s were high points. You'll believe what you want, but it is hard to misread a chart so simple.

sbannon

04-28-2006, 06:49 PM

Okay, Dude, first, your pre 1970 Hurricane chart only includes Atlantic storms which hit the U.S. Yes, it's a small world after all but not that small, when you look at the numbers--including pre-1970--on a global scale your argument gets blown away (pun intended).

Oh, wait, you have that nice chart about NW Pacific Typhoons from 1946 to 2005. Two things about this chart, first in the article you pull it from they admit that the apparent "low" from 1970 to 1986 is probably due to a faulty formula that miscalculated storm strengths, and second as I've said all along, all storm calculations prior to 1970 were based on less accurate instruments and flawed formulas.

It's an accepted fact that we were less than accurate at storm measuring prior to 1970, by everyone except the closed-minded who would rather build smoke and mirrors from faulty data then face actually doing something positive.

Don't respect me, it doesn't bother me at all. Be done with me, it'll save me valuable time. But deal with it, because I and others like me will get the legislation required to pull the narrow-minded and lazy--kicking and screaming if need be--out of the fossil fuels age and into a cleaner future.

forest_ranger254

04-28-2006, 10:41 PM

William, you make wild comments from left field without any reference to what facts your opinions might be based upon? For instance, "They [environmentalists] are the reason we are so energy-dependant on Iraq." Where do you get that from? It's beyond crazy and unless you can show some actual evidence to support such a notion I'm going to have to ask if you've gone off your meds?

Nebraska, Alaska. Those two states alone have at least twice the oil the Middle East has. you afraid of jumping up from last place in the carbon cycle's list of the highest contributors to next to last place? pump them and gas prices go down. I cite CNN, FoxNews, and many, many local news stations, radio stations (Chattanooga, TN, you have 107.9, the Duke FM, Newschannel 9, and 101.3 FM, Jacksonville, FL, you have 99.1 WQIK, 99.9, Gator Country, 107.9 Rooster Country, the news on public TV channels 4, 12, 25, 30, and 47) that is my list of news sources on gas prices.

As for man's contribution of greenhouse gasses, you're right and wrong. There is a natural cycle of greenhouse gasses that occurs, the evidence proves this. The problem with being so dismissive of man's impact is that nowhere in history (aside from the event which killed off the dinosaurs) does the evidence show such a rapid increase as we've seen in the past 150 years--a blink of the eye on the geologic time scale--and as I've said several times in this thread, that's where the concern is. In the past, over natural climate shifts the planet has been able to recover relatively quickly (in geologic terms) and return to a balanced, temperate climate. There's no way of knowing however, if this will or even can be the case with a climate shift that's empowered and expedited by the unnatural influence man has had.

here a a few of the responses I have been sent on volconvo.com (linked of course):

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=234768&postcount=1
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=234778&postcount=2

here is the USGS's current estimate on how much a volcano releases per year:

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

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

going by the environmentalist sources (here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html)), and the sources provided in the linked responses to global warming with graphs, the ratio of the three counterbalancing molecules has not changed considerably. also, considering that there are also natural and artificial processes that create ozone, the carbon cycle is not effected.

It's an absolute uncertainty, my (and other environmentalists') position is that given the uncertainty we should act to error on the side of caution.

and when the error proves fatal to us. there is no such thing as a clean power source that can power that many people. that is, unless they manage to figure out a way to harness helium-3.

KrAzY3

04-29-2006, 01:22 AM

Yeah, faulty data... ignoring Camille and all pre-1970 storms is faulty. Ignoring decades of data is faulty. Guys like you are what's wrong with the environmental lobby. Facts are only there to use when they serve your purposes, that is not how science is intended to work. What you so willingly refer to is not a science, it is a taking figures that fit your criteria and excluding anything that does not. It brings into question all the facts and figures because as you've shown you are unwilling to purge the faulty data or even admit the poor sampling. Is this how you guys conduct yourselves? Is that how you and like minded people arrive at your conclusions? Unfortunately you proved my first point when I said:

the fact is we were in a ebb from the 70s until now, and a lot of junk scientists have used that partial data to claim things are on the rise. And here we have someone claiming that there isn't a debate, it has changed and we can't even argue about that! That, is just tossing science out the window.

In either case we're done here.

forest_ranger254

04-29-2006, 09:36 AM

Yeah, faulty data... ignoring Camille and all pre-1970 storms is faulty. IgnoringÂ*Â*decades of data is faulty. Guys like you are what's wrong with the environmental lobby. Facts are only there to use when they serve your purposes, that is not how science is intended to work. What you so willingly refer to is not a science, it is a taking figures that fit your criteria and excluding anything that does not. It brings into question all the facts and figures because as you've shown you are unwilling to purge the faulty data or even admit the poor sampling. Is this how you guys conduct yourselves? Is that how you and like minded people arrive at your conclusions? Unfortunately you proved my first point when I said:

the fact is we were in a ebb from the 70s until now, and a lot of junk scientists have used that partial data to claim things are on the rise. And here we have someone claiming that there isn't a debate, it has changed and we can't even argue about that! That, is just tossing science out the window.

In either case we're done here.

There has been no change in environmentalist lobbies. The green party is just a bunch of yahoos that want to twist things to means what they want. The proper use of facts and figures is to figure out a correlation. the problem is, there is no correlation between anything except the rise in hurricanes and the rise in what GM calls "Ecomagination."

RLN

05-29-2006, 08:23 AM

...It isn't those who are most concerned about man's influence that have made this a political issue, it's those who would prefer to ignore it. They do so since it's easier to scare people about changes in their lifestyles that they can see and feel; then climate changes which won't be as apparent until it may be too late, and they do it because there's more profits today in staying the course. Look at who opposes environmental regulations and spends fortunes lobbying against them, pays for false reports to counter real scientific findings--look very closely. They're leaders of industry and politicians who've aligned themselves very closely with leaders of industry. It's a selfish camp with a jaded and opportunistic perspective...You're right about what you said. Have you checked out what Factcheck. org (http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html) had to say about this?

DHard3006

06-01-2006, 10:11 AM

All the tree huggers need do is develop the alternate fuel to oil.

Yet the tree huggers do nothing but cry about how everyone else but them are polluting the world.

How do tree huggers get around? They drive cars that produce pollution.

How do tree huggers heat and cool their homes? They use energy produced by the use of oil, coal, or the atom.

If the tree huggers are going to cry the sky is falling then the tree huggers need to come up with the solution.

Oh and what do the tree huggers do? They demand that the oil companies develop the alternate fuels to oil.

Oil companies are in business to sell oil, not develop other fuels that will compete with their product.

Robodoon

06-27-2006, 02:00 PM

This is obviously the #1 debate currently about our environment. Global warming is something that many scientists argue about and the politicians seem to care very little about the subject.Â*Â*I want to do more research on this and join the debate on the topic. Anyone with good links, knowledge, or an opinion please post.

Human Caused Global Warming is a LIE of the Rich. It is hoisted on my kind to promote the UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21.

Most people don't understand that the environmental movement is Rockefellers baby....for Social Change.

Aurelio Peccei founder and past president of the Club of Rome saidâ€
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages ,famine, and the like would fit the billâ€¦All of these are caused by human interventionâ€¦The real enemy , then is humanity itselfâ€(the Birth of World Government Paraphrased from page16 by Michael S. Coffman Ph.D)

The thing they donâ€™t tell the people about this is that the Elites cause all the pollution (they own the Multinationals corps) , and Fraud sources for Global Warming (3500 scientist who agree with global warming all get grants from the UN or the EPA while the 18,000 scientist who say it is a fraud do not)
. http://www.discerningtoday.org/

Groups like the Sierra Club are directly related to the Club of Rome and past Leadership have even stated they are in league with the Club of Rome and desire the Global Government promised by them. Past leadership has stated by a guy named Elvin
â€œâ€¦a collectivist world government and through a â€œglobal societyâ€ to replace â€œsterile nationalism with its evil emphasis on competition and Consumption

If you read the Club of Rome report, Limits of Growth, you will find they intend to create artificial shortages. Other publications such as The Unfinished Agenda and the 1992 Rio Report To The Club of Rome confirm that objective. They believe shortages are better than abundance, and low living standards are better than high living standards. I suggest you reread my January letter, evaluate the information cited there, and then read the summary of the Global Biodiversity Assessment contained in my Sustainable Development Syllabus. When you grasp the significance of the concepts discussed there you will understand why there is an energy shortage in California, and why the price of natural gas is rising across the nation. The "Elite" groups that rule the world want to create artificial shortages, force people to limit their consumption, and undermine our way of life. [23]
http://www.radioliberty.com/nlmar01.htm

Like I keep saying Humans havenâ€™t polluted the earth itâ€™s a game, the pollution that has been done by â€œmanâ€ has been because of the force finite markets of the Elites. They hold monopolies on everything and we can only use what they say, ,like oil and MTBE which Pollute.

In fact, the powers behind the enviromental movement are the very Rich who own the corporations and markets that pollute, the solution offered to man is that "WE THE PEOPLE" change our lives, not the rich who pollute.

THE ELITES SOLUTION IS THAT WE CHANGE NOT THEM.
ITS ALL a TRICK Against the people of the Earth by a few Rich bastards!
Under the Rich's Solution this is what America ends up looking like

http://www.robodoon.com/AGNEDA%2021%20MAP.jpg

to understand the Terrible EVIL that is being hoisted on us via the UN's environmental policy see: TAKING LIBERTY (www.takingliberty.us)

Nathan Brazil

07-16-2006, 05:06 AM

Well, Discovery is having a show tonight on Global Warming. If anyone watches, post up some comments.

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 12:13 AM

Never mind, it's hosted by Tom Brokaw, so show could only have one viewpoint, that of the envirowhacko socialist left which is fueled by a desire to destroy the United States and impose world government on everyone.

I've watched 75 & of the show so far and it's nothing by a one-sided editorial for the leftist position of OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIEIFWEDONTDOSOMETHING!!!!

Labrocca

07-17-2006, 12:33 AM

It's an accepted fact that we were less than accurate at storm measuring prior to 1970, by everyone except the closed-minded who would rather build smoke and mirrors from faulty data then face actually doing something positive.

By your own arguement you admit that pre-1970 we can't say how accurate the info thus who can say that storms have worsened? What about 200 years ago...500 years ago....50,000 years ago? There was an ice age at one point and I don't believe fossil fuel was the cause.

Deacon

07-17-2006, 06:56 AM

Well, Discovery is having a show tonight on Global Warming. If anyone watches, post up some comments.

I saw the show last night, I was intresting, but really tried to scare you by showing the recent change in the weather pattern and how the Earth is warmer than it is naturally supposed to be, and it also mentioned how scientists are using super computers to predict the future climate.

I think we should find Earth 2.0 with Steven H.

sbannon

07-17-2006, 11:48 AM

Labrocca, there have been many ice ages in history, and the evidence is that all were the result of CO2 build-ups in the atmosphere.

Yes, not by admission but in-fact the point of my arguments was that "storm" measurements--which have to be taken during the actual storm--were sadly inaccurate pre 1970.

The point was that we can only rely on the data of the past 36 or so years with regards to storms to be accurate.

Storm strengths aren't the only indicter of Global Warming, though those who argue against GW like to point to them because they somehow see the lack of more long-term data in this one area as a weakness in the GW theory. It's sort of like looking at a tiny hole in a piece of Swiss Cheese and saying "there's no cheese there".

As I said above, past ice ages have all been proceeded with large CO2 build ups. We can see and measure this.

There are natural causes for CO2 emissions, and natural filtering processes for removing CO2 from the air. It's a balance that can and has been thrown off in the past by certain events.

Still, the CO2 build ups of the past which proceeded ice ages were far slower and much more gradual than what's currently happening.

Why? Well, mankind is pouring tons of CO2 per day into the air, an unnatural addition to the balance. And, mankind has reduced the areas of vegetation which filter the CO2 out of the air by drastic amounts, another unnatural impact on the balancing system that's tilting the scale.

My biggest personal fear isn't the short-term impact that this will have. Many will suffer and die, but many will simply move further away from coastal and northern regions and mankind will go on.

My fear is what happens when mankind is compressed onto a smaller global land mass and then continues to chop forests and burn fossil fuels?

In past periods of ice age the Earth ultimately healed itself and returned to balance as the climate settled, vegetation grew and CO2 levels returned to normal. What will mankind's impact on this healing process be?

People will need lumber, heat, energy, etc. wherever they are. Will preventing the vegetation growth stunt or stop the healing process?

There's just no way to know, so the question I ask myself is--is this what I want to leave to my children and grandchildren when I know there is an alternative?

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 12:43 PM

Who's to say that it won't be nicer when we're able to grow wheat in Siberia?

As for having less land if the ice melts...Greenland and Antartica will be open for colonization...I saw a map, I'll have to find it again, of projections of what the earth would look like if the ice melted. Floriduh was gone, but that wouldn't be a waste.

Oh, and as far as the melting of the ice is concerned, the thickness of the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets is growing, which is one reason why ice is flowing off Greenland at a slightly faster rate.

Anyway, that show was a one-sided waste of time. Man's history of survival has been the history of man controlling larger and larger parts of his environment. Ultimately, that will include controlling how the sun itself affects the earth. I do suspect that if we kept the Antartic in permanent shade we'd get one hell of an ice cube in no time at all. And that technology is almost available today.

sbannon

07-17-2006, 01:15 PM

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 01:41 PM

As for having less land if the ice melts...Greenland and Antartica will be open for colonization...I saw a map, I'll have to find it again, of projections of what the earth would look like if the ice melted. Floriduh was gone, but that wouldn't be a waste.

Nathan, the whole process happens in steps overÂ*Â*periods of time. While it's a fun quick-jab to say Greenland and Antarctica will be open for colonization, that's not the reality.

Global Warming ultimately leads to Global Cooling, otherwise known as ice ages.

Does it, or is that the natural cycle? I say once we get used to having a nice cozy planet to live on, we'd want to do things to keep it that way. There's nothing saying the climate of the Twentieth Century was optimal, and lots of evidence saying it wasn't. They were planting grapes in Greenland before the Little Ice Age, for example.

I say that once the place warms up, and once we get the environmentalists to go away, we can make this planet a much nicer place for us to live. No polar ice pack means a shorter sea route between New York or London and Tokyo or Vladivostock. The big historical Russian goal of a warm water port will be achieved. Arable land in Siberia and Canada will vastly increase. All plusses as far as I'm concerned. Polar bears belong in zoos, anyway.

In the natural cycle, carbon builds up in the air, then gets sucked out by plants. Sure, and there's astrophysical phenomena interacting, also. But the cause of the Permian extinction was likely a sudden release of methane from oceanic methane ices, and well, what the hell, if we started getting chilly again, we could always tap that if there's no other alternative.

Oh, and as far as the melting of the ice is concerned, the thickness of the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets is growing
Source? Every scientific study I've seen, including a recent NASA study (which determined that "Greenlandâ€™s ice sheet is rapidly thinning") says the exact opposite of this. So what is your source for this astounding revelation please?

I'll have to dig it up.

if we kept the Antartic in permanent shade we'd get one hell of an ice cube in no time at all. And that technology is almost available today.
Really? What technology is this? I'm really curious.

It's called an L2 Mirror. Put it up there, and either let it eclipse part of the sun, or focus it as a beam if you want to fry an enemy nation. What it would basically be is aluminum foil taken from lunar soil and placed where it would be handy. If we can build a politician designed space station, certainly real engineers can build a mirror.

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 02:19 PM

Antartica Shows Cooling Trend (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/22/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-yet-another-predictable-distortion/)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/ant_glaciers1.JPG

NASA Reports Antartic Sea Ice Area Increasing (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html)

sbannon

07-17-2006, 03:38 PM

You linked to a WCR article which uses selective data to draw subjective conclusions from a 4 year old report?

I say selective data to draw subjective conclusions for this reason, the WCR refutes a 2005 story in Science magazine because it only used data collected from one part (the red box in your posted image) of Antarctica. The WCR then points to the 4 year old NASA report of your second link which covered a study that also was only of a part of Antarctica, the southern hemisphere ice sheet.

In other words, WCR is saying that the 2005 Science magazine article is jaded because it doesn't look at the whole picture by using another non-whole picture source to support the claim?

Just an FYI, that 4 year old report wasn't published to discredit or rebut the Global Warming theory, the point person even says that GW just isn't a straightforward scenario and the study shows it's a much more complicated set of events.

We could debate back and forth forever on this, but instead why not look towards an actual big-picture study from NASA which was published this year on the subject?
http://www.officeroutlook.com/news/Science/1210.htm

Another good study from researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February of this year that "By all accounts, the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, even as the ice sheets of Antarctica â€” the world's largest reservoir of fresh water â€” also are shrinking".
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023

On the L2 Mirror, yeah, okay there, big mirror in orbit to shade us from the sun huh?

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 04:53 PM

Umm....I see a map of Antartica in which major portions of it are showing a cooling trend...

sbannon

07-17-2006, 06:42 PM

BoogyMan

07-17-2006, 06:58 PM

Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal Wrote:
Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

sbannon

07-17-2006, 07:30 PM

BM, that's twice now I've seen this op-ed piece pasted on these forums (was it you the first time too?). So let's address Mr. Lindzen for a moment.

This is a guy who's openly stated his mission is to pick holes in the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A report that he in fact helped research and write. A report that the National Academy of Science called "an admirable summary of research activities in climate science". So, who's right here? The NAS and Lindzen when he originally researched and wrote the report--or Lindzen now all by himself out there writing op-ed pieces to discredit a movie?

He's also a guy who earns $2,500 per day consulting for oil companies on environmental issues. Has been compensated to testify before the Senate by Western Fuels and was paid by OPEC for a speech titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus".

You can't exactly call his an unbiased position can you?

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 08:22 PM

Umm....I see a map of Antartica in which major portions of it are showing a cooling trend...
Yeah, see... that would be the "it's a much more complicated set of events" part of what the 4 year old report was trying to display.

Yes, there are indications that certain regions have seen a cooling trend in average temperatures--while at the same time the evidence clearly shows that the ice sheets are melting and breaking away at a pace much faster than even the so-called 'treehugging prophets of doom' were suggesting just a decade ago.

Yeah, generally increase in the deposition rate leads to an increase in the flow rate leads to more ice getting pushed into the ocean. Ice only looks solid.

Needless to say, what's being reported as a disaster is wrong. And, like I said, things were nicer when grapes grew in Greenland.

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 08:24 PM

He's also a guy who earns $2,500 per day consulting for oil companies on environmental issues. Has been compensated to testify before the Senate by Western Fuels and was paid by OPEC for a speech titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus".

You can't exactly call his an unbiased position can you?

Ah, the lame old "he's getting paid, he must be lying" argument.

Like the hacks promoting anthropogenic climate change don't have financial interests motivating them.

And through it all...no one will say what's bad about being able to grow wheat in Siberia.

BoogyMan

07-17-2006, 08:36 PM

sbannon

07-18-2006, 11:48 AM

BM, you call me dishonest and imply I'm lazy? It's sad that members of this forum would lower themselves to such school-yard behavior when others refuse to drink the Kool-Aid they pour. You chose a hired-gun for the energy companies to hang your position on and I called you on it with facts. Grow up and deal with it.

What's dishonest in what I said? The substance of his testimony (and since when do Senate testimony transcripts include cartoons?) has no impact on what I said about it... the trip was still comped by Western Fuels.

He does freelance consultant work for energy companies, and he has worked with/for OPEC. All facts that have not been disputed.

None of this is dishonest, and to answer Nathan's remark it's not a knee-jerk "he's getting paid so he must be lying" position, it's the fact that he's getting paid and is the lone academic voice making his claims that led me to wonder about his credibility enough to investigate.

It's also the fact that he spends a lot of time trying to discredit findings now (while freelancing for energy companies) that he himself helped to originally research and publish.

Those two facts together make me suspicious of his motivations at this point, that only seems logical. He has deep ties to groups who have a real financial stake in continuing down the old path of burning fossil fuels. His opinions would carry more weight without those ties, or with a little recent corroboration from the scientific community. Unfortunately, he hasn't gotten that.

Nathan Brazil

07-18-2006, 12:57 PM

So it's motivations that matter, not the truth?

Have you examined the motives of all those government funded hacks proclaiming that they need more government funding to further their studies of this ever deepening crisis threatening to destroy the entire human race?

The sky ain't falling, and before we alter our lifestyles on their say-so, we should know their motives are pure. The left has been using pseudo-scientific scare stories to manipulate the minds of the ignorant for decades. The global warming scare is clearly another effort in those same lines.

Is the earth getting warmer? Sure, why not, the Little Ice Age ended, so naturally it's getting warmer.

Has human released carbon dioxide contributed to this? Probably. However, humans contribute approximately 1% to the global carbon balance. Not an extraordinary amount, and the annual figures vary, anyway.

The fact of the matter is, it WAS warmer in the past, both during the semi-civilized period we called the Middle Ages, and even warmer during a period called the mid-Holocene Altithermal, in which average temps were about 8 degrees above today's mean. The planet cooled off without instigating another ice age.

Why do I call global warming a psuedo-science? Because the goal of it's proponents is to intiate emotional and pyschological changes in the general population via an emphasis on potential crises not yet realized, because every natural disaster is woven into the fabric of the tale as evidence of worse to come, and because of the imperative demand for immediate action before irreversible damage occurs, regardless of the costs of the recommended actions.

On the flip side, global warming activists will not even explain their basis for presuming today's climate is optimal, though it's clearly not. Nor do they like being asked why we should trust the predictions of their computers when those models won't predict last year accurately.

Put it all together, and the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis comes across as something a sleazy huckster is trying to get the marks to buy before they figure out it won't work, sorta like those "scramble the egg in the shell" gadgets Ronco once sold.