Global Warming revisited

[Zguy28]

I breath, therefore I pollute. Bring on an Ice Age, it's fricking hot down here.

My theory in a nutshell.

[21KO]

What does any debate and inquiry accomplish? It makes us better informed citizens and voters, which I think is a good thing.

It's gotten ridiculous. If a Dem was in office the arguments would be reversed. The right would be screaming the world is ending. That's not debate. Obviously science is split on this issue, so you can choose which side you believe and call it a day.

Please, for the love of god, don't force me to further enlarge my CO2 footprint anymore. I can't take it.

[Johnny Punani2]

Good catch, I didn't know that. I'm sure if you use Google, you can dig up just about anything on anybody, and who's paying for it. He does have some good raw data though. I personally have read some on each side of this argument, and I'm not convinced we're causing anything, and if we are its very little and not smog and fossil-fuel related.

My own theory is that the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 - is due to the increase in the population of people.

According to the Population Reference Bureau the population of the world was roughly 300 million in 1 A.D. and in 1250 it was 450 million. Extrapolate that to the year 1000 AD and its around 420 million, granted increasing at a constant rate.

Anyway the population at year 1000 AD was around 420 million.

The current population in the world is close to 6.5 billion. Thats about a 1,547.61% increase in CO2 expelling human bodies. Compare that to the 31% increase in ppm. Do you get my point?

No, it's not a good catch. It's an attempt to devalue an opposite opinion not based on science but innuendo.

[wxtornado]

Ah, the greatest arrogance of all – save the planet! What?? Are these people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet – we don’t even know how to care for one another – we’re gonna save the planet??

I’m tired of earth day, I’m tired of self-righteous environmentalists who don’t really give a snot about the planet – they don’t care about the planet. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live – their own habitat. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me; besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are screwed!

Compared to the people, the planet is doing great! It’s been here for 4 ½ billion years. Did ya ever think about the arithmetic? We’ve been here for what, 100,000 maybe 200,000 years? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years! 200 years versus 4 ½ billion. And we have the conceit to think somehow were a threat? The planet has been through a lot worse than us!

Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles. Hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice-ages, and we think some CO2 is going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere, WE ARE!

We’re going away, and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that. The planet will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation, just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planets doing? Ask those people in Pompeii – frozen into position from volcanic ash. Wanna know if the planet’s okay, ask the people in Mexico City, or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week.

The planet will be here for a long, long, loooooong time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system.

The Earth can phase us out whenever it wants to. Actually, I think that’s begun already. I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with, and the planet can defend itself, in an organized collective way – the way a beehive or an ant colony has a collective defense mechanism.

What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see. Viruses! Viruses might be good – they seem vulnerable to viruses. And uh, viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures – perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually – making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well, that’s a poetic note.

Don’t worry about the little things. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom that we will ever understand. A higher order. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just IS. And so are we – for a little while.

[webnarc]

Ah, the greatest arrogance of all – save the planet! What?? Are these people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet – we don’t even know how to care for one another – we’re gonna save the planet??

I’m tired of earth day, I’m tired of self-righteous environmentalists who don’t really give a snot about the planet – they don’t care about the planet. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live – their own habitat. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me; besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are screwed!

Compared to the people, the planet is doing great! It’s been here for 4 ½ billion years. Did ya ever think about the arithmetic? We’ve been here for what, 100,000 maybe 200,000 years? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years! 200 years versus 4 ½ billion. And we have the conceit to think somehow were a threat? The planet has been through a lot worse than us!

Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles. Hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice-ages, and we think some CO2 is going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere, WE ARE!

We’re going away, and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that. The planet will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation, just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planets doing? Ask those people in Pompeii – frozen into position from volcanic ash. Wanna know if the planet’s okay, ask the people in Mexico City, or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week.

The planet will be here for a long, long, loooooong time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system.

The Earth can phase us out whenever it wants to. Actually, I think that’s begun already. I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with, and the planet can defend itself, in an organized collective way – the way a beehive or an ant colony has a collective defense mechanism.

What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see. Viruses! Viruses might be good – they seem vulnerable to viruses. And uh, viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures – perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually – making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well, that’s a poetic note.

Don’t worry about the little things. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom that we will ever understand. A higher order. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just IS. And so are we – for a little while.

The people of Tuvalu wouldn't share your opinion that the planet is fine but they'd agree that some of the people are screwed.

[AlexRS]

And YOU will enlighten me, is that right? With your unbiased view? :laugh:

Me enlighten you? You are giving me too much credit here. I am not capable of enlightening people against their will.

What I can do, however, is to make an attempt to discuss these matters. Unfortunately such an attempt seems beyond what you are capable of.

Nope, but I'm sure you'll spend plenty of time digging.

You never answered my Co2 footprint question. How much electricity have you wasted on this topic? Yes, wasted, because IMO you will never convince anyone here that it's more than partisan bickering.

Indeed! You can refuse to avoid discussion. You can refuse to think. You can choose to ignore. Want to talk about unnecessary CO2 footprints? Consider how much CO2 you would release into the atmoshpere throughout your lifetime.

[Johnny Punani2]

Me enlighten you? You are giving me too much credit here. I am not capable of enlightening people against their will.

What I can do, however, is to make an attempt to discuss these matters. Unfortunately such an attempt seems beyond what you are capable of.

Indeed! You can refuse to avoid discussion. You can refuse to think. You can choose to ignore. Want to talk about unnecessary CO2 footprints? Consider how much CO2 you would release into the atmoshpere throughout your lifetime.

You need to speak for yourself. You need some serious "enlightening" on this subject as well.

[AlexRS]

Obviously science is split on this issue, so you can choose which side you believe and call it a day.

No, you feeling that science is "split on this issue" does not mean you can pick and choose which side to believe. You still have to examine evidence. There is no easy way out here :laugh:

[21KO]

Want to talk about unnecessary CO2 footprints? Consider how much CO2 you would release into the atmoshpere throughout your lifetime.

Such a mature response. Not surprising at all.

[AlexRS]

You need to speak for yourself. You need some serious "enlightening" on this subject as well.

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

[AlexRS]

Such a mature response. Not surprising at all.

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

[Johnny Punani2]

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

What have you read so far on the subject besides news clips and articles?

[Zguy28]

The people of Tuvalu wouldn't share your opinion that the planet is fine but they'd agree that some of the people are screwed.

They're concerned, yet they used all of their sand and trees for building and fuel?

From CIA factbook:

Environment - current issues: since there are no streams or rivers and groundwater is not potable, most water needs must be met by catchment systems with storage facilities (the Japanese Government has built one desalination plant and plans to build one other); beachhead erosion because of the use of sand for building materials; excessive clearance of forest undergrowth for use as fuel; damage to coral reefs from the spread of the Crown of Thorns starfish; Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table; in 2000, the government appealed to Australia and New Zealand to take in Tuvaluans if rising sea levels should make evacuation necessary

[Zguy28]

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

Tireless Rebutter

[Johnny Punani2]

I would love to read and discuss any information you can provide on the issue in question.

This should keep you busy for awhile...

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/GetDrDewCategory.asp?Category=Global%20Warming

[21KO]

Want to talk about unnecessary CO2 footprints? Consider how much CO2 you would release into the atmoshpere throughout your lifetime.

You make statements like this and expect rational discussion? :doh:

[21KO]

Tireless Rebutter

LOL! :applause:

[Zguy28]

This should keep you busy for awhile...

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/GetDrDewCategory.asp?Category=Global%20Warming

Excellent post. I had to click refresh though on the page.

[wskin44]

I do not think Earth as a whole is a delicate thing that will roll downhill if thrown out of balance. Hunderds of species can die out, whole systems can be disrupted - but I think Earth as a whole can take quite a lot of punishment from us QUOTE]

There's no question that the Earth can take a lot of punishment from us, and if it gets tired of us it will just shed itself of us irritants. It's a natural process for it to clean itself out from time to time. The Earth can do quite nicely without us, but on the other hand we don't have the luxury of doing without the Earth.

[wskin44]

Ah, the greatest arrogance of all – save the planet! What?? Are these people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet – we don’t even know how to care for one another – we’re gonna save the planet??

I’m tired of earth day, I’m tired of self-righteous environmentalists who don’t really give a snot about the planet – they don’t care about the planet. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live – their own habitat. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me; besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are screwed!

Compared to the people, the planet is doing great! It’s been here for 4 ½ billion years. Did ya ever think about the arithmetic? We’ve been here for what, 100,000 maybe 200,000 years? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years! 200 years versus 4 ½ billion. And we have the conceit to think somehow were a threat? The planet has been through a lot worse than us!

Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles. Hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice-ages, and we think some CO2 is going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere, WE ARE!

We’re going away, and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that. The planet will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation, just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planets doing? Ask those people in Pompeii – frozen into position from volcanic ash. Wanna know if the planet’s okay, ask the people in Mexico City, or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week.

The planet will be here for a long, long, loooooong time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system.

The Earth can phase us out whenever it wants to. Actually, I think that’s begun already. I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with, and the planet can defend itself, in an organized collective way – the way a beehive or an ant colony has a collective defense mechanism.

What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see. Viruses! Viruses might be good – they seem vulnerable to viruses. And uh, viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures – perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually – making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well, that’s a poetic note.

Don’t worry about the little things. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom that we will ever understand. A higher order. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just IS. And so are we – for a little while.

What he said. I wished that i had said that because that is exactly how I look at it. :applause:

[techboy]

Sorry Z, this stuff is unfortunately not good

You know, you might be right that Zguy28's link is biased, but if all you've got to demonstrate it is Wikipedia, which I don't fully trust because anyone can edit it at any time, and Sourcewatch, which is a left wing version of Wikipedia, I've got to wonder a bit about the accuracy of the information they provide.

Further, even if that bias/funding was true, that doesn't necessarily mean the guy's wrong. He seems to cite a lot of papers from peer-reviewed journals. I think his arguments should be judged on the merits, and not on perceptions of his motivations. For one thing, if bias automatically eliminates a groups arguments, you can't believe a word Sourcewatch says, because they are run by a front group for left wing environmentalists. I have previously discussed Sourcewatch here.

Now, personally, I don't believe in eliminating arguments based on bias. I think on important issues of the day (like this one), it's impossible not to be biased. As to funding by the oil companies, that's definitely a factor, but consider this: their business is at stake. Wouldn't you say they have a legitimate interest in supporting the work of scientists that dispute the claims of the people trying to pursue policies that would harm their business?

So, in summary, I don't think you addressed Zguy28's link at all. Perhaps instead you can show how the studies cited on that blog are wrong, or misguided, or even, yes, paid off by oil companies (but you'd have to show that the studies were influenced, not just funded).

Just as an aside to this discussion: My father is an engineer and meteorologist who worked for NOAA for 25 years building weather satellites, and is now working for Mitretech on the private sector side, still with NOAA, still doing the same thing. He's a very smart guy, and I'd say pretty knowledgable on the issue. He treats Global Warming in a manner consistent with the "left" (not that this is really a left/right issue, really) in this discussion, for what that's worth.

[Predicto]

Here is a fascinating article on the rift in the scientific community over this issue. It is long, but well worth the read - even if you disagree with every single word.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

[Thiebear]

See signature: there are so many threads it makes it easier.

[AlexRS]

You know, you might be right that Zguy28's link is biased, but if all you've got to demonstrate it is Wikipedia, which I don't fully trust because anyone can edit it at any time, and Sourcewatch, which is a left wing version of Wikipedia, I've got to wonder a bit about the accuracy of the information they provide.

Further, even if that bias/funding was true, that doesn't necessarily mean the guy's wrong. He seems to cite a lot of papers from peer-reviewed journals. I think his arguments should be judged on the merits, and not on perceptions of his motivations. For one thing, if bias automatically eliminates a groups arguments, you can't believe a word Sourcewatch says, because they are run by a front group for left wing environmentalists. I have previously discussed Sourcewatch here.

Now, personally, I don't believe in eliminating arguments based on bias. I think on important issues of the day (like this one), it's impossible not to be biased. As to funding by the oil companies, that's definitely a factor, but consider this: their business is at stake. Wouldn't you say they have a legitimate interest in supporting the work of scientists that dispute the claims of the people trying to pursue policies that would harm their business?

So, in summary, I don't think you addressed Zguy28's link at all. Perhaps instead you can show how the studies cited on that blog are wrong, or misguided, or even, yes, paid off by oil companies (but you'd have to show that the studies were influenced, not just funded).

Just as an aside to this discussion: My father is an engineer and meteorologist who worked for NOAA for 25 years building weather satellites, and is now working for Mitretech on the private sector side, still with NOAA, still doing the same thing. He's a very smart guy, and I'd say pretty knowledgable on the issue. He treats Global Warming in a manner consistent with the "left" (not that this is really a left/right issue, really) in this discussion, for what that's worth.

That is a good point.

Bias alone does not mean the stuff is untrue, yes... Wikipedia is user edited, yes - but it does provide references, which come in handy when we are talking about a guy who has been repeatedly exposed like Pat Michaels:

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/08#mckitrick6

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/10#razor2

I agree that affiliation and source of funding do not necessarily result in bad data. After all, it makes sense that oil companies and such would conduct studies themselves. However, I am sure you would agree that vast majority of such sources are specifically aimed at infuencing public opinion. There is a big difference between companies investing in science and companies investing in PR.

There is strategy of making it sound like the scientific community is divided. This strategy is used to justify policy when science conflicts policy (see Crationism vs Evolution). The way this strategy is implemented is by producing as many scinetists as possible who say things.

This does not mean that all scientists who say things are part of this strategy, but it does mean that there are "scientitsts" who are. Pat Michaels is clearly one of them.

We are forced to deal with a LOT of misinfirmation and pseudo-science here. No, this does not mean that all incoming information is misinformation and pseud-science - but a lot of it is. Clearly we need a way to filter out the most obvious ones, such as Pat Michaels and William Gray (sorry Thiebear), and poiting out that one managed to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians and the other is a stubborn 75 year old man who operates on a 50 year old theory and his own gut feeling (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2628933&postcount=94).

In either case, there are some sources posted in this thread that are not as obvious as Pat Michaels and William Gray. I will review them and post here.

On a side note I'd like to add that several people here seem to approach this discussion with a certain "we can talk about this but I'm not going to change my mind" attitude. Indeed approaching a discussion with such attitude seems wasteful. Of course I expect to be accused of doing the same.

I would also like to say that when faced with two contradictory notions people are not necessarily forced to pick one and believe it. Doing so results in having to "drop" the previously "picked" notion in order to pick up a different one. Doing this is not easy. The way to deal with this, in my opinion, is to keep in mind that everything is possible. Picking one option and "believing in it" is akin to believing that "tails" will come out when you flip a coin.

[Zguy28]

Here is a fascinating article on the rift in the scientific community over this issue. It is long, but well worth the read - even if you disagree with every single word.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Good article. Thanks.