Subscribe to Listverse
Global Warming seems to be in the main stream media every day now. Despite the threats of melting ice shelves resulting in mass flooding, and temperatures that will destroy the earth environment as we know it, the BBC reports that we have had 10 years of cooling. Despite this, the debate rages. No one can dispute that Global Warming has produced a worldwide market for scientists and apologists that will lose a lot of money if Global Warming is found to not be true; the question is: is Global Warming Real or is it a myth being perpetuated by supporters of money swallowing policies such as the Kyoto Protocol and media giants?
Is Global Warming Real and Is It Caused by Man?
My answer is that we have not had sufficient time to truly gauge whether we are in a warming period. It was not so many years ago that the MSM and Scientists were warning us of an up and coming ice age – now we are spending a LOT of money every year for people who claim we are in fact heating our planet. The biggest concern to me is that so many people now rely on global warming to keep their jobs, that they may be too biased to give us an honest view. I predict that in 10 years, Global Warming will be laughed at as a fad of the 2000s.
Remember: treat everyone with respect, and no ad hominems!
April 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Finally, I’ve been waiting for this, My answer is that global warming is natural, but we as humans are definitely speed up the process of it. i mean, look at the 30’s, the Earth was heating up a LOT. But ten later years or so later, the Earth began to cool down.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
-Gets popcorn, water, and Al Gore- This could get interesting….
April 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Greenhouse gases are natural, and they keep heat on the planet. Humans have been releasing more of these gases by burning fossil fuels and by deforestation. If there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is logical to assume that the earth will retain more heat and global warming will occur.
Its really too bad that it can’t be looked at in a simple way like this because of what jfraater said, people make money off of it and therefore its the subject of controversy.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Global Warming is an inane issue. What’s more important is the serious overpopulation, energy and natural resource problems which no sems to talk about.
Whether or not it is true, we have to seriously reconsider our relationship with the natural world and treat it with much more respect.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I just want to go on record here and now and say that, regardless of whether or not global warming is a true phenomena happening at a dangerous pace, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was one of the worse, most sensationalist pieces of crap I’ve ever had the misfortune of watching. It was so poorly done, from a scientific standpoint, that it would turn any logical viewer with a background in the sciences off of caring about global warming.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
*worst
April 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
i just don’t know anymore. i remember people saying that global warming was so bad that we are going to start to experiance longer summers and shorter winters,………well i live in chicago and the news was talking about seeing some snow next week,now we are in april and i’m still seeing snowflakes around my area. it seems to me that winter will just not go away. so like i said before i just don’t know anymore. but i can say that i’m looking foward to seeing everyones view’s,comments,and response’s.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
JT- Why do you think its inane?
I agree with the rest of what you said, espescially about overpopulation – its scary.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
JT: actually – I find the overpopulation thing interesting – the UN predicts that by 2050, the third world will have increased in population from 5 to 7 billion people – there is a LOT of land mass there – and great potential to feed them through good farming etc. (which is hindered often by corrupt governments). The UN also says that by 2050 the rest of the world population will remain unchanged. It seems to me that people who are worried about overpopulation are worried about an increase in births in mostly black nations – for most westerners this will have no effect on them. Why are we concerned about the growth in population in nations that have the natural resources to cope (presuming their governments sort things out)?
April 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
jon: I go to school here in Chicago, and I’m actually taking a class sort of on global warming right now. On Thursday, when it was so rainy and gross out, our professor tried to bill it as global warming happening (essentially) the same way it did in “The Day After Tomorrow”, and then told us we could help matters by becoming vegetarians and shunning all beef products. :rolls eyes:
April 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
oh – from what I just said, forgetting the third world for a moment – the rest of the world has a stagnant population – no growth or loss at all.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
And for what it’s worth, the growth rate of the population (of the world, not specific nations) has, more or less, plateaued in the last 5 years.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
jon: Chinas has just had the coldest winter on record since many many years ago. The UK seems to be in winter still (it is hailing right now) – last year this time we had a barbecue and got sunburnt. There is no doubt that there has not been a global increase in temperature in the last ten years – but the pro warming people tell us that we can’t just look at ten years – so why not? What if the next ten years are colder as well? How is it that we can predict the world’s temperature for the next 100 years but we can’t predict whether it will be sunny or wet next weekend? It sounds like psychohistory to me (refer to the Foundation Novels for the definition of psychohistory)
Jen: exactly! It is a great opportunity for greenies to force us to follow their lifestyle choice – but what if that is ALL it is?
April 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
i agree with Csimmons that it is a natural process(the earth has been getting gradually warmer since the end of the ice age some 11,000 years ago) but humans are releasing more greenhouse gases than the earth is prone to.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
For more on overpopulation check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Population_projections_from_the_1900s_to_2050
“The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.”
“Birth rates are now falling in many developing countries, while the actual populations in many developed countries would fall without immigration.”
“In 2000-2005, fertility at the world level stood at 2.65 children per woman, about half the level it had in 1950-1955 (5 children per woman). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.”
That seems to suggest a loss in growth – not an increase.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am
While birth rate is falling for indigenous people in the developed world, the immigration rate is skyrocketing. Plus the link you posted suggests that the world population will reach well over 8 billion by 2050 (though the Living Planet Report calcualted 9.2 billion), which I predict will lead to a disaster of malthusian proportions. In fact, a study by the WWF and the Global Footprint Network suggests that we will require two planets to satisfy our needs by then. The signs are already around us – diminishing wildlife, disappearing forests, resource shortages, climate disasters – we are heading for a REAL disaster I predict.
As for Africa, that problem could be solved by using GM crops, which countries are reluctant to do, and distributing contraception with vigour. The President of South Africe doesn’t believe in AIDS and 25% of his peope, are infected with it. The Pope endorsing contraception in Africa would also be a good constribution.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Does anyone who does not feel global warming is a real thing, believe that the excessive release of gases into the atmosphere is ok?
I mean, fine, if you don’t think global warming is probable, but does it make it okay that these gases in the atmosphere are increasing? Something will happen if we just move forward in the same way, haphazardly, and not try to focus at least some of our energy on repairing our mistakes.
It really makes me tired to hear people say “Oh its cold out today, wheres global warming now?” Hop in their suv and crank the heat.
And regarding overpopulation: just because the earth’s population is not increasing AS FAST, does not mean that it is not increasing. Where are we going to put all of these people, and what will they eat? Or should we just not care since they are in third world countries and our countries have stagnant populations? (is this what you mean jfrater?)
I don’t want to be arguementitive but people are so quick to dimiss environmental problems and it is a very real problem. I understand why too: no one wants to be told what to do, and environmentalists going around yelling at people and being radical just makes regular folk want to do the harmful things more, or at the very least stop listening and do what they want.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am
JT: re GM crops – do we really want to replace our natural crops with copyrighted crops? Have you heard about the farmer suicides in India relating to Monsanto and GM crops?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Farmer_Suicides_in_India
Additionally, contraception has not done anything to cause a reduction in birthrate. And, while your wish for the Pope to endorse contraception would certainly help to spread its use, the Pope is unable to do so as it is a defined Catholic dogma that contraception is a mortal sin – therefore no Pope can ever endorse or even allow its use.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Oh – here is a citation for “contraception doesn’t reduce pregnancy”:
http://www.lifenews.com/int604.html
April 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Most definitely in my mind this issue is largely driven by ideology first. While I won’t argue against the fact that humans contribute to CO2 production, I see little evidence for the drastic calamities espoused by the faithful. What I do see, and am increasingly frustrated by is a tendency by the global warming faithful to use science politically. Consensus does not a theory make, and as an unscientific observer I see plenty of evidence that contradicts those who say the planet is warming.
With that I’m contemplating heading up to Mt. Hood where there has been plenty of fresh snow in the last week adding to already record snow fall levels. Spring skiing? Bah – we’re still enjoying old man winter in April.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Ooh, interesting topic! I think it’s a partly a natural process, but we’re doing a great job of making things worse. I kind agree with JFrater, that it’ll be a fad and we’ll be laughing about it 10 years from now on Vh1 shows. Kind of like El Nino, ya know?
April 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
jadester: I was not suggesting it is not a problem because the growth is in third world countries – I am saying that the ONLY growth is in third world countries and they have the land and ability to deal with it (if their governments spend money on the land and not weapons). I believe that is what I said in my first post
April 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Chaz: Don’t read any Bruno Latour!
April 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I think it is very important to reduce pollution to improve things like drinking water and protecting wildlife, but I think global warming is over-hyped. For some to say that we’ve nearly destroyed an entire planet millions of years old in a few decades is over the top. I think we should clean-up locally, but earth will be ok globally
The hype is being driven by corporations as a way to increase sales. The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of businesses that lobby for policy changes; a recent one was the banning of traditional light bulbs in the Clean Energy Bill of 2007. These corporations will make billions by selling their new higher priced florescent bulbs.
The worst is GE, which uses its news channel MSNBC to promote green issues, ad nauseum. It’s never mentioned though that GE is one of the worlds largest polluters.
These companies are using catchy slogans like “ecomagination” to get people to buy their lastest washers and fridges, and get people to overlook the fact that these companies really haven’t reduced their waste and emissions.
I predict in 10 years, when everyone has their new light bulbs, new dryers, etc., global warming will be phased out and then the corporations will come up with some new threat to grow sales.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I just didn’t understand what you meant. That is true that it is only in third world countries, but how long could they possibly sustain themselves? They can’t even do it now… and we are the ones who use their land for our production needs. Let’s be honest, we pay these countries lots of money to let us use their land and the money goes to these leaders who will never but their people before money.
Maybe a few of these nations will sort themselves out but the vast majority will stay this way for a very long time, espescially if we keep showing a need for their resources.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am
*put
Sorry i have a stuffed up nose
April 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
jesus causes global warming
April 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
jadester: we can’t nanny these developing nations – they must come to their own aid – if the government won’t help – they must fight to get government that will. Before they reach a crisis of overpopulation they will fix their governments. It is far too early for us to add yet another “world crisis” – we are already spending a fortune on an unprovable Global warming – let’s not add to the pot
April 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“JT: re GM crops – do we really want to replace our natural crops with copyrighted crops? Have you heard about the farmer suicides in India relating to Monsanto and GM crops?”
According to that article they do work, and the main reason for the suicides is poor management in one area. My suggestion is not to replace natural crops, but merely to use GM crops in areas where it is necessary. This article sums up my feelings: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200207/ai_n21315895
And though I know, Catholics see contraception as a mortal sin, I don’t personally know of any Catholics who abide by these laws. Jesus came to get rid of the ridiculous OT laws and instill a new, more liberal ideology of doing no harm and trying to help those in trouble. I think when children in Africa are being born already infected with AIDs because young African men can not control there urges, this is a serious issue, and the Pope, who is an ideological leader to many Catholic Africans, would do well to at least suggest somekind of solution to thsi problem, apart from abstinence, which can only fail.
The article you linked mentioned only the pill, when I was referring specifically to condoms. In a country where 1 in 4 people is infected with AIDs, not using a condom is idiotic.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am
JT: my point was that the Pope is not ABLE to allow contraceptives – so don’t look to him to support that
As for Catholics who use them – that is between them and God – but they are committing a serious sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Contraception condemnation is not an old testament thing – it was taught by the apostles as well – hence its presence in Christianity through the Catholic Church.
Regardless of my own feelings on the matter – I really don’t see why abstinence is not an acceptable alternative – if you don’t fuck – you don’t get disease – that is a 100% guarantee. For 100% of people who practice it – it works. Why discard it?
April 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
i was pretty damn cold last night
April 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
jesse: I was pelted by hail today – AND we had thunder and lightning.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
jfrater: I know we shouldn’t nanny them, but I think we as consumers should take the responsibility of not needing such luxurious lives that nations need to suffer.
In a way, overpopulation or at least starvation has reached crisis levels in some countries and their governments havent stepped in yet – what makes you think they would with a bigger population? I would never underestimate the power of some people’s greed.
But if the governments do decide to get their acts together and they prosperous nations and not starving then what happens? We have nations of people who live like capatilists and they would be wanting bigger houses, cars, etc. But now, (I’m using your figure here) we have 5 billion MORE people living this way and using up resources. So really, a cure for this crisis would not be simply to grow crops in lands that have starvation but to reprogram people to either (a) not want to live such luxurious lives or (b) begin a population decline, which would take a lot of leadership and may not be noticable for maybe a century.
So if you look at it this way, we are kind of already in a situation where overpopulation is inevitable.
And, no matter which way this plays out, the countries that we live in will have their quality of life affected – simply by the depletion of resources.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I believe global warming to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that we are exacerbating through excessive release of greenhouse gases. Everything I’ve read says that the speed of change (ocean temperatures, global temperatures – don’t go by 1 or 2 years, there can be small blips in an overall trend, decreasing ice shelf, decreasing glaciers, melting of permafrost etc) are happening quicker than ever before experienced. Ice cores, peat bogs, and the like provide the evidence.
I don’t believe the total destruction, doom and gloom outcome either. I think we will end up with more extremes in weather; more storms, higher winds, Hardest hit will be marginal areas – it will put them over the edge. (Growing desert in Sudan)
We should do what we can. Burning fossil fuels for power is still one of the major contributors of pollution, so increase funding for alternate power sources, provide monetary incentives (tax breaks and the like) for converting to environmentally innocuous practices. Its a good idea anyway, it would be great to come up with an alternative before we run out of fossil fuels altogether. I don’t believe anyone will say that our current practices are good for the environment.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thank you jfrater, I didn’t realise contraception was a NT matter, I thought it was an OT oddity, like eating shrimp being a one way ticket to Hell. However, did Jesus have anything to say on the matter? Because the apostles were simply products of their era, and can’t really be seen as authoratative on matters of morality I would imagine. After all, it was Paul who said that “drunkards, adulterers and homosexuals” would never see the gates of Heaven. I was just hoping that the Pope could “re-interpret” Catholic dogma, the way he did with tenets such as the Assumption, evolution and the requirememnts of sainthood, as to suggest that, in extreme circumstances, contraception CAN be seen as an alternative, if say, you know you’re going to get AIDs from your partner.
As for abstinence, it is ideal. But we’re not talking about a utopia here, or even Western Europe. We’re talking about Africa, where there’s nothing to do BUT “fuck”, where rape rates are astronomical and where people are simply too uneducated and uncultured to make rational decisions regarding sex. So I support abstinence in the same way I support bubble suits – great, but not going to happen. That’s why condoms are vital, along, of course with sex education.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
yes and yes.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
My question is: why does it matter if we’re causing global warming? We have to change anyway, so rather than needing an excuse like “the planet will kill us all”, shouldn’t we just do it because it’s necessary?
There isn’t enough proof that global warming is caused by humans. Volcanoes release more toxins into the atmosphere than we do and I don’t see anyone clambering to put corks in them to stop it. The point is, it doesn’t matter if we’re causing it. We still have to get off fossil fuels and to different forms of energy that are renewable and reliable. The sun is reliable. Wind is moderately reliable, the ocean currents are rather reliable. Why aren’t we making significant efforts to utilize these natural functions? Oil will run out (though I don’t believe for a second it’s in the next 20 years…there’s no shortage…sorry, there isn’t, it’s a load of bunk and the oil companies know it).
The solution isn’t to deal with global warming, because if the planet is warming up, we can’t stop it anyway. We humans are exceedingly arrogant when we think we can accurately control the Earth. Over and over again this little planet has shown us that we have no control whatsoever. We can’t stop tidal floods, we can’t stop volcanoes or Earth quakes or tornadoes, or any of it. The planet is going to do whatever it wants and we’re here for the ride.
But we can control how we use the planet for our own means. We need alternate fuels and we don’t need them next year, we need them tomorrow. Oil companies should be significantly investing in these things because when the oil runs out, they’re out of jobs.
I don’t believe in Global Warming. I think the problem with GW people now is that they are doing exactly what the anti-GW folks used to do: ignoring evidence to the contrary (legit evidence mind you). You don’t have the whole picture and for anyone to tell us we’re killing the planet without proper evidence is unethical. There is too much evidence against GW and too much for it for us to be certain what is happening. Not to mention the fact that this little planet used to be a lot warming than it is now and technically the planet has been warming up for a long time ever since the ice age. If the planet is doing what it does naturally anyway then we really can’t do much about it. We just have to change because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s meant to save our butts. Give me hydrogen powered cars and really good solar power and get rid of annoying oil and crap. I don’t like oil anyway, it’s useless in the long run.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
We’re talking about Africa, where there’s nothing to do BUT “fuck”, where rape rates are astronomical and where people are simply too uneducated and uncultured to make rational decisions regarding sex.
Hmm, sounds like Alabama.
Seriously, though, abstinence doesn’t “work” anywhere, because people are always going to have sex. Promoting abstinence is only going to result in people knowing less about what to do to protect themselves (from disease and babies) once they’re having it.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I think we’re fucking over the environment by polluting it, but I don’t believe in global warming. I mean, come on, it’s been 32 degrees outside every morning in Southern California since December.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
JT: Can you give me an example of the Dogma that contradicts the current teachings on evolution (science – so not dogmatic), the Assumption (defined as a dogma but not in contradiction to any other dogma that says otherwise), and requirements of sainthood (not dogmatic – but practical)? As far as I am aware – dogma is a very strictly defined thing – a pope can not contradict a dogmatic decree. The three things you mention are not in contradiction to any defined dogmas. A dogmatic decree has been made on contraception (Humanae Vitae – Paul VI I think).
No Pope has ever contradicted another dogmatic decree – if the assumption was a “re-interpretation” there had to be a former decree that declared it otherwise.
I certainly look forward to seeing the decrees you come up with!
April 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
well… just because it’s colder now has NO say in what warming trends are. it can be the worst winter on record in a long time… but the general trend is still going up. i think what i learned form my class was that there is a cycling of temperatures every 10-20 years of abnormal hot and cold, but this trend still goes upwards.
but even if you don’t believe it (which i do) it’s still nice to do things to prevent all the ’causes’, right? less carbon emissions, sustainable environment… it still does good for the earth no matter if it would help warming or not~
April 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
global warming is a fad. This earth has been through so many more serious things that a tiny tiny temperature increase over a hundred year period. Its a cult that companies are marketing on in order to sell more hybrid cars and “green” household detergents.
its all BS that record numbers of people are believing, and I think its shamefull.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The earth has been warmer (and cooler) in the past.I think that in 20 years people will watch Al Gores movie the same way “Reefer Madness” is watched today. The sun is a nuclear furnace ,not a gas fire.It burns hotter at times,and cooler at other times. The fact that convinces me is the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking . Is it from the two rovers we sent or could it be that the sun is burning a little hotter at this point in time?
April 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Alls I know is that when I was a kid, we used to get a white Christmas. Not any more. Now we get both blazing sunshine and hailstones every God-damn day. You may think that global warming is BS but if you can’t tell me any other reason for this crazy weather then maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to write it off.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
jfrater: I use the word dogma so often I forgot it had a strict religious meaning. Simple misunderstanding.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
JT: NP
(I’m a poet!)
April 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
no.
its natural.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
perfect example of junk science imo.
Scientists told us we were heading for the next ice age 50 years ago. Why? So they could make money.
Al Gore’s net worth when he ran for pres in 2004 = 1million
Al Gore’s net worth after his global warming hysteria campaign = 100 million.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Really, if scientists were wrong 50 years ago about an ice age, then why should we believe them now?
April 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Chickensoup; Do you get thunderstorms in winter now too?
We get them frequently; they used to be rare. Winter without a cold January/February is just wrong.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
@ J.S. Limiting carbon emissions just “because” is stupid. Some of the things Al Gore, California, and Kyoto Protocol want to do are drastic measures which would have adverse effects on economies and just our everyday lives. Unless it’s proven that it’s a serious problem why mess up our system and lower our standard of living?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The weather is getting worse and more unpredictable everywhere you look. It’s a process that’s ongoing and undeniable. (Even if it’s not happening at your backyard. Try seeing beyond your nose once in a while.)
That means that the global climate system is destabilizing, or changing into something new altogether.
That’s enough for me to worry, whatever name you may give to ‘that’.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
People find what they look for and the minute a scientist believes his own hypothesis, he’s a dead duck as a scientist.
My hypothesis is climate change is not man-made.
The hypothesis runs:
It’s not solar irradiance alone.
It’s not sunspots alone.
It’s not CO2 above 18 C.
it’s not water vapour alone.
It’s not cosmic radiation alone.’
But it may be cosmic and solar radiation modulated by solar magnetic activity subtly changing the cloud albedo of Earth.
Beware the unintended consequences of sequestering plant food during the famine.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Global warming is an extremely natural process that earth goes through. As someone said earlier, the sun gets hotter and cooler at different times, and it affects earth as a direct result. I suppose Al Gore needs a lot of money, otherwise he wouldn’t have taken up the cause.
And environmentalists, quite frankly, can screw themselves. I understand their concerns, but forcing others to live the way you do is simply bullcrap. And I’m not giving up beef products. Maybe cows ruin the environment through their fecal matter and farts. Who cares? As long as beef continues to be delicious, we will always have cows for us to snack upon.
Forgive my generalization (if there are environmentalists who don’t force their lifestyle on others, I apologize), but that’s how I feel.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
yes and yes
April 12th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
State of Fear, by Michael Crichton.
Go read it.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mitchsn: he ran for president in 2000, not 2004.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Humans only contribue 0.28% of all greenhouse gases.
I think it’s pretty dumb how we are spending billions of dollars on trying to stop something natural.
Pollution we should try and reduce, but global warming no.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Has anyone mentioned cow farts yet: http://theloispage.com/misc/bovineindex.html
Farm farts are funny. For anyone who believes this massive cattle flop, Please do us a favor and do your part. Stop Breathing.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
i feel it is arrogant to believe that we can keep the climate static and the same, when climate change is the natural state of the earth. we should get off fossil fuels, and move to renewable resources, but that would be more for human benifeit that the benefit of the earth.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’ll so straight to the point, but I’m not saying its caused by human intention.
Could humans generate global warming artificially using modern technology and natural ressources?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
CT Guy: In fact, I believe the sun to be a “gigantic” nuclear furnace…
Here’s a link with temp avgs going back 425,000 years:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
Historically, looks like we’re right about where we should be. I don’t think there’s a concensus among people who earn money studying GW, so my opinion is worth little. But it seems, given that minor temp changes can have cataclysmic effects, that *any* contribution by us of greenhouse gases is not a super great thing.
JFrater: I would sooner hope that we’d sprout non-reproductive sex organs than rely on abstinence. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are a nearly immutable force. Of course the Catholic church is anti-contraceptive — it is an organization stuck in the Middle Ages, and its anachronistic beliefs continue to marginalize it.
Not to offend anyone or anything…
April 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I believe in global warming, but to a very limited extent. I mean, of course, we’re messing up earth and we can’t expect after all the junk we do to it for earth to just go unscathed. But seriously, changes on earth have been happening since forever and will continue to happen for forever. Yeah, we can make some things better for ourselves, but in general, the earth wins, hands down; life (not necessarily HUMAN life) continues no matter what, and quite unevitably, one day humans will disappear to give way to something else.
Earth and Life: 1 Humans: 0
(Tonny SS: yeah, great book. everyone should read it.)
April 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I think Global Warming is real but it’s not as serious as everyone thinks. Some of it’s caused by man but the plantet just heats up and cools down on it’s own some times.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
*planet*
April 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I think Global Warming is not where the concern should be.
I think deforestation is serious problem, but not because of Global Warming.
Instead we wasted a god damn load of money into research. For what? For expensive alternative energy that now turns out not to be environmental friendly at all.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Its funny, I’m 39 and when I was a kid I remember there was talk of a “new ice age” and that everything was getting colder, now its “global warming” Clearly no one knows what’s going on and are just making shit up as they go along and pretend they are presenting “facts” rather than conjecture
April 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
For my 2 cents, the world goes through lots of changes. It gets warmer, it gets colder, and so on. We probably aren’t helping it much but I seriously doubt we’re going to destroy the planet.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Global Warming is caused by man; this is not disputed by legitimate scientist across the globe. What one can debate about is the earth’s natural tendency to cool and heat on it’s own through natural cycles. In addition, Carbon Dioxide should not be the only concern in combating global warming. As mentioned before, deforestation and habitat destruction plays a major role in contributing to Global Warming. What troubles me even more than Global Warmings is that we as a species have technology that enables us to combat it’s affects, yet we are not we are not doing what is necessary to secure our planets future. The greatest threat is not Global Warming, but human complacency.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I saw on the news a couple weeks ago that the 4 major weather monitoring stations had released their latest annual report and that they estimate the global average temperature had dropped 0.65-0.75 degrees celcius in the last year, which is the greatest drop ever recorded and enough to make up for the last 100 years of global warming. My personal belief is that global warming is the new “Ozone Layer.” Politicians and the scientists in their pockets are exaggerating or fabricating the issue to increase their influence. The earth’s climate is not and has never been static.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080410-gw-cosmicrays.html : My goal for the day is to keep people informed… I’m so freaking bored.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I personally have seen plenty of photographic showing the dramatic decrease of the surface areas of many glaciated areas (mountain tops, polar ice caps, ice sheets, etc.) I can say from what I’ve seen there seems to be a great deal of melting in a very short amount of time (geologically speaking). However, I believe that global warming is a platform that is abused often as an excuse to make money or to climb up on one’s soapbox. It is a great scare tactic for some people and political groups. I do believe that the excess use of greenhouse gasses and the unncessarily large amount of pollution do spell out definate trouble in the future, but I also think it’s fairly safe to say that the end is not immenent and global warming is not a phonomenon that will do in human kind.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
*photographic evidence
April 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
we all know what is really causing global warming…
its that damn man/bear/pig, just like gore has been trying to tell us all along
April 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
it is getting warmer every day here in texas. climatologists predict that in just 60 days we will be exceeding 100 degrees almost daily.
some sort of yearly warming trend that generally happens between may and august.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I am quite concerned with the lack of faith in science evinced here. For all the people who brought up the “global cooling” in the 70s, it was never more than a blip on the scientific radar. Very few scientists agreed with it. On the other hand, a gigantic report by a large group of scientists presented to the U.N. has stated that global warming is real and at least partially caused by humans. The two situations are extremely different and to compare them is really not a good argument at all.
As for the effects of gloabal warming, I believe they may be somewhat overblown, but certainly something we need to prevent if we can and prepare for if we have to. The effects will probably not be noticed so much on a small timescale (year-to-year) but over a much longer time. For example, the Canadian Prairies (Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba) which provide most of Canada’a agricultural output, have had steadily decreasing rainfall, increasing temperatures, lower lake levels, and longer summers over the past 30 years. (www.diavik.ca/News/2006/DOE%20Record%20Warm%20Winter.pdf) Agricultural output has remained steady due to better farming techniques, but an exacerbation of this may cause Canada to produce, and therefore export, less food. Again, the large effects that people need to see probably won’t happen, but the small things that affect everyone are happening already.
And for overpopulation, there have recently been food riots in Egypt, Haiti, and Mexico due to increased prices for food. This is in part due to government policies and the decisions of a few large companies, but as countries with large populations becoming bigger, more wealthy , and eating more and better food (China, Brazil, Mexico spring to mind) this is going to get worse and worse. The Earth may be able to support some more people with better food distribution but we will have to come up with some major advances in food technology to continue the growth we are experiencing.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Back in 1896 Svante Arrhenius (those of you who didn’t snooze through chemistry might recognize the name, his work described ions in an aqueous solution, he got a Nobel Prize out of that) was trying to come up with models for the Ice Ages. Through experimentation, he deduced that a doubling in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause about a 5 Degree C rise in temperature. Recent models indicate that he was a little high, it is now thought that it causes a 3.6 Degree C rise in temperature.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 280ppm to 380ppm, or a bit over 30%.
As far as ‘colder’ winters. Warmer seas will increase the amount of water vapor, as it moves inland it will eventually encounter something that will cause it to precipitate out. Thus heavy snowfalls in places like the midwest.
On the other hand, Europe is certainly seeing warming. My brother lives in Sweden, this year they never saw the waterways around Stockholm freeze over, which is very unusual. The story “Hans Brinker” probably would not have been written today, over the last hundred years, the famous canals in Holland rarely freeze solidly enough to allow skaters.
Variation is normal, but the overall trend in temperatures is pretty clear. We might see bumps up/down, but I suspect we’re in for a bad time in the not too distant future. A small shift in temperature can have disastrous effects, the “Year without a summer” (1816, the year Mt Tambora dump tons of ash in the atmosphere) saw a mean decrease of less than 1 Degree C, and yet it caused havoc worldwide with food production.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
cows are a main producer of greenhouse gas, therefore, we should eat every cow that we see
April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Global warming and freezing is natural. Humans might be nudging it along a little, but it is an inevitable phenomenon. We should be preparing for it, not trying to stop it or slow it.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
78. CRussey
No, no no. That’s absolutely the wrong way to think. Don’t eat them because they produce GAS…eat them because they’re DELICIOUS.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
@ Steve: true, standard of living would go down, but people would be happier (i’m reading affluenza in my college english class right now) and it’s a shame that America is so consumer based… too bad people think having things makes life good. yes, we are a rich country, but we shouldn’t abuse it too much.
this is the 1st thread in which i’ve commented, and even with all the disagreements, it’s all civilized and it’s very fun heheheh!
April 12th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
We need to measure the release of radiant energy from the Earth, and the radiant energy from the Sun and other sources.
From this we can see if there is a net increase in energy, which will mean there is heating.
Ice core evaluation seems to prove that the Earth periodically changes in temperature, but it’s still unknown why at this stage.
Regardless of any heating or cooling, we are stuffing the planet up. Global warming could be a side effect of a bigger issue, which is pollution. Pollution seems to have taken a backseat to global warming in the recent years, but it has got noticeable effects, it’s proven. It’s far more damaging, and far easier to stop and reverse.
Also, the world is overpopulated now. Doesn’t matter if it stays the same, or decreases. There are too many people, and we’re already seeing it now. With the mandatory introduction of biofuel quotas, we’re seeing food stocks deplete even lower. Here in New Zealand, we’ve seen the food stocks go down from about 130 days, to just 50 days. All countries are affected by this. And the only way to quickly fix it (the only way things get down on Earth) is to cut down more forests, and grow food (or fuel) crops.
Biofuel is the stupidest idea ever.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Wow – only 82 comments – I really thought this one would be controversial! I guess it is good that it isn’t
April 13th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Some facts seem to have escaped people’s attention. First of all the IPCC, is not a scientfic organisation. Indeed Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has called for its abolition. Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case.
(see http://www.nov55.com/ipcc.html)
Secondly, the small increase (less than 1 degree centigrade) in global temperatures for the century prior to 1998 has had no deleterious effect on the world. For example, there is no empirical evidence to back up claims that hurricanes have increased due to man-made global warming, indeed the reverse may be true. Also it is a fact that more people die from cold events than warm events.
What we are talking about here is a political movement, evidenced by the fact that so many people get downright nasty when it should be a plain discussion about the science (which is not settled, by the way).
No-one is suggesting that we should do more to protect the environment and preserving resources, but there are different ways and means of achieving that. The sudden rush to biofuels, as the previous poster noted, is causing widespread chaos in terms of food stocks, prices and destruction of rainforests. A daft idea in the first place, but typical of the usual headless-chicken ideas emanating from the so-called “green” sector. I am appalled when politicians (I believe Chancellor Merckel was one) spout nonsense like “we need to keep keep temperature rise down to 2 degrees”. Huh? Where’s the thermostat?
There will be technological advances in the offing which will help reduce our dependency on oil, but these will take time to develop. In the interim the market price of oil will ensure that there will be a general per capita reduction, as in the case of any commodity. Those who spout the alarmist views are often those who want to see a headlong shutdown of western (specifically American) economies. Such an eventuality, if allowed to happen, would cause worldwide econonomic problems which in turn would cause more deaths through starvation, particularly amongst the poorest nations, than any supposed (and often fabricated) effect of “global warming”.
Besides which, global temperatures are cooling. Alarmists will say this is just due to El Nino which is merely an “interannual variation” event. Funny how they don’t dismiss its warmer relative and predecessor, La Nina, as an interannual variation too. There is a growing belief among some very prominent scientists that we shall soon experience a natural cooling phase. Wise heads – of which there seem to be few around in positions of power – will see this possibility and will ditch the daft CO2 targets (daft because they are unachievable, will cause economic hardship and will merely line the pockets of the existing rich – no names – who underpin the morally bankrupt cap-and-trade business) to concentrate on the energy and agricultural issues which a cold trend will present.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:42 am
A dilettante’s fashionable pet cause. Nothing more. The whole African continent is her playground as well.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Global warming is the biggest hoax ever. Global warming is no more true than Santa Claus. The idea of Global warming was created by the Queen of England in the ’90s as a political ploy so she could get grant money to produce certain hybrid cars.
We are not in a warming period. I have solid proof that will show conclusively that global warming is a hoax. I will publish this information on my website soon.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Tax-grab.
That’s all it is.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Harry; Global warming is not true? or Human activity causing it? Proof? I can just imagine. Same kind of proof that the moon landing was a hoax? or the same kind of proof that WTC was taken down with explosives and not aircraft? I can’t wait. Post the link when you’re done.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am
What kind of MoronFest is this message board? Of course climate change is real. We are killing this planet. Simply trying to deny it will not help. Only an idiot would think that. And there are plenty of idiots on this board. 99.9% of scientists agree it is a vital problem that needs a solution NOW and look at all of the science deniers coming out of the woodwork. Like the button I wear on my lapel: SCIENCE – IT WORKS, BITCHES!
April 13th, 2008 at 8:04 am
incognito228: One scientist from the IPCC changing his mind does render the entire process null and void. His claims that “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible” are not backed up in any way. He also the only person (as far as I know) from the IPCC to change your mind. 1/3750 is pretty impressive.
As for higher oil prices decreasing comsumption, it seems like common sense, but it’s not happening. In fact, oil production by OPEC has been increasing steadily since 1999 (http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm).
You seem to just be cherrypicking scientifically unsound data to support your own causes, which seems to be a common trend among people who don’t agree with global warming. The Sun changing its irradiance is a completely ridiculous idea and most of the arguments against it are summed up on page 2 of this article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html). The man completely ignores the effects of the greenhouse effect which makes his calculation laughable. Because Earth has an albedo which is more than twice that of Mars (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/albedo.html), even if Mars temperature is caused by the Sun, it would have a negligible effect on the Earth.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Badjuggler and chestah, you have a lot to learn. You are so damn brainwashed that you can’t see your face if you were in front of the mirror. As for the sun, many scientists in the world agree that the sun has a lot to do with the way the climate works. Don’t you know that. Those who call people idiots are morons themselves. They just cover it up by calling other people names to cover over their own insecurities. The fact is that there are constant gamma rays shooting off the sun and when they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they disrupt the magnetic field around the planet. When the magnetic field is disrupted, this causes a change in wind currents. This is a scientific fact that has been proven many times by scientists and meteorologists as well.
There is undeniable proof that global warming is a hoax and I have many facts, backed up by many scientists, to prove it.
You can debunk my words all you want. You can do so because you are ignorant to the truth. When you learn the truth and still fail to believe it, you will find yourself putting your head between your legs in shame as others laugh and scoff at your failed attempts to carry on your own false beliefs.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am
My question is why do the global warmists never mention the extra energy the sun has been producing over the last 100 years? Take a look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
Do you notice the spike in Solar Variance over the last 100 years? Also, if you think that isn’t significant, look at the Solar Variance of the 1700s. It’s at the lowest point on that graph. The significance of this is there was a mini ‘ice age’ in the 1700s. Coincidence? I think not.
Another point. Has anybody actually looked at the carbon production of one volcano? One volcanic eruption produces enough carbon emissions as one decade of human activity. That means, with all the volcanic eruptions of the past, the volcanic emissions dwarf everything we’ve ever done.
Also, I laugh at the idiot behind the wheel of a Hybrid Car. Did you know that it takes as many carbon emissions to make one Hybrid car as it does a Hummer to reach 100,000 miles?
CFAustin
April 13th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Harry: Do you have some peer-reviewed articles on that? Because I would really enjoy reading them. I’m in my fourth year of a combined honours physics and astronomy degree and I have yet to hear about gamma rays from the Sun changing the Earth’s magnetic field in the upper atmosphere and somehow altering wind currents near sea level. This “undeniable proof that global warming is a hoax [...] backed up by many scientists” would also be quite interesting to read.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Harry Husted; you said
“The fact is that there are constant gamma rays shooting off the sun and when they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they disrupt the magnetic field around the planet.”
I say bunkum. So do many others. Here is one of many statements available to discount above stupidity.
“Arguing that Shaviv and Veizer had in places adjusted the data, “in one case by 40 million years”, the Eos team says they did not show any correlation between cosmic rays and climate.
And even if their analysis had been methodologically correct, it says, their work applied to time scales of several million years, while the current climate warming has occurred during just a hundred years, for which completely different mechanisms are relevant.”
So misrepresentation of data (only 40 million years off) and poor application of the facts.
Try again.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am
CFAustin: Because even the most optimistic estimates from the person who did the research still only say that the Sun could account for no more than 30% of the temperature increase seen. (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.100)
As for the volcanoes argument, I would be interested where you got your numbers because (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html) says that human emissions are more than 150 times that of volcanoes in any given year. It also has a peer-reviewed study to back it up!
April 13th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Global warming…is it real? Short answer..No. Long answer…probably no. My proof of this comes from “global warmers” themselves. When there’s a cold snap, they scream “global warming.” Fine, but when there’s a heat wave, they scream “global warming” AGAIN. Those aren’t reasonable protocals. They’ve set it up so they CAN’T lose. It sounds like religion to me. When God answers your prayers, he loves you. When he doesn’t….he loves you, but he’s “testing” you. Another proof…..nuclear power. It gives off NO CO2, yet “global warmers” are OPPOSED to it. Why? Isn’t this global warming thing an emergency, and not merely a crisis?
April 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I can’t believe there are so many people who still don’t think global warming is real.
I am afraid for this planet.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
They are in complete denial. Easier to believe that the big bad boys are out to steal their money than it is to understand that they’ll have to make changes.
People/Species who don’t adapt to changes end up in museums, with a label saying “Extinct” next to their exhibit.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
of course its real. know ive seen a few times people here saying about their city being the coldest this year ina while, or insane winter storms blah blah blah. i guess they dont realize taht global warming is on a …GLOBAL scale. yes your city might have a few more coooold days than normal, but other places might have a few less cold days than normal. besides this global warming that could endanger us all is only going to warm up by a few degrees on average.
You can’t deny that the earth is getting colder when antartic and glacial ice is melting at a record pace and not building up enough during colder months. The amount of ice at the northern pole is lessening almost every year. Those ice caps, being white, reflect alot of the suns heat. as the earth heats up, more ice is melting meaning that the darker water is absorbing more of the suns heat in turn making the earth hotter too. Being from southern lousiana i can say this this winter was pretty warm compared to the winters past.
i just hope people can educate themselves enough about this topic before picking sides.
the science and evidence is there, just look for it.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The question should really be in two parts:
1) Is the earth experiencing a greater than normal variation in climate conditions and temperature?
Yes
2) Is this due to human activity or natural variation?
Who knows, the evidence cannot support either conclusion, and equally qualified experts disagree on this matter.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I learnt at school that we are still coming out of the last ice age, and that there have been at least six ice ages in the last 200,000 years. What causes these? in the past the earth has cooled and warmed up without any human contribution, and as volcanic activity has remained constant for many millions of years, what causes the ice ages and subsequent warming?
April 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’m noticing a trend here. One person says THIS, another person say WRONG, LOOK AT THAT. The FIrst person goes AH HA, HACK! HERE IS WHY. Third person agrees with First and brings THE OTHER. Second, MORE PROOF. Third… first… second… first… second… third… first… third… second… Never ending arguments brought forth by people not in the industry or community. How do we know that you didn’t just find some educated “Looking” senior project. You can find ANYTHING on the internet. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it’s true. Find Proof, by way of Published Scientific Study, not most commonly held opinion. No statistics unless you can source it, just bad manners, and every one knows 43% of all statistics are made up.
CFAustin: Do you listen to everything the Wiki tells you.
Harry Husted: Do you Really think that insulting someone will make the think as you do.
Badjuggler: Refer to my Statistical Proof, and the comment to Harry. Courtesy: It’s good form Dick head!
April 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Personally, I don’t think there is enough evidence out there for any one to make a decision on anything. All we have is recorded dated from the last couple centuries. We have only been able to look at the ozone layer for the last fifty years. Right now I don’t think scientists have a good enough model of anything to make any kind of judgement one way or the other. Take R-12 freon for an example. The scientist’s stated that it was ruining the ozone layer. They stated that it was the chlorine in the freon attaching itself to the oxygen molecules in ozone layer making heavy oxygen and hence the ozone layer is evaporating. all this is in laymen’s terms. next we hear that the ozone is fixing itself. great we still have millions of cars leaking r 12 into the atmosphere and it is fixing itself hmmmmm. makes you think doesn’t it. I still believe the R12 scandal was just another way for the big companies hence Dupont from making one freon to making another freon for cars r 134 which is worse on the environment then R12 was.
Food for thought if it was the chlorine attaching itself to the ozone molecules why are we still allowed to use chlorine in our pools and water supplies. chlorine disappates{sp} out of pools just like it does out of air conditioning systems. I am not real smart it just seems to me money is the driving force behind everything that is done in this world call me a skeptic if you like .
April 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Chestah, I have three points to make. Firstly, you know very well that Gray was not just 1 out of 3,750 (I think you meant 1 out of 2,500).
To quote: “An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
I’m not going into further arguments about figures, but suffice to say it is quite evident that there are a number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC, and a number who do.
Secondly, I have no doubt that oil production by OPEC has been increasing steadily since 1999. With the growth of developing countries that is to be expected. I said that per capita demand falls with price, and I stand by that assertion.
Thirdly, and despite your somewhat unpleasant assertion that I “seem to just be cherrypicking scientifically unsound data to support your own causes, which seems to be a common trend among people who don’t agree with global warming.”, I should point out that I did not mention solar irradiance at all in my post!
Since you’ve brought up solar activity, though, there are scientists around the world who suggest that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which is believed to be behind the El Nino and La Nina phenomena are correlated to solar activity.
See: http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm
You may also find the following quite interesting if for no other reason than it can be found on the website of HM Treasury (UK government):
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/7/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf
April 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Chestah: I see you keep posting ‘Peer reviewed articles’ and I see you say you’re a student. This does not sway me toward your belief in mad made global warming. I showed you the evidence on the sun, and that is all I can do about that.
It is my experience that those who want a socialist/communist society, tend to believe in global warming. You may laugh, but I bet you’re all for taxing the ‘evil rich’ and giving those taxes to the ‘unfortunate and unlucky’ poor.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
CFAustin, Harry Husted. You’re not helping. Stop it.
See incognito for how to make a good argument.
I, for one, is not denying Global Warming and calling it a hoax. But most likely, this scientist means well, they are concerned, and ultimately, they simply committed causation vs correlation fallacy.
They missed Solar Cycle. They missed Volcanic Eruption. They ignored Urban climate. They decried any skeptic as enemy of the planet. They ignored the fact that in some place glacier GROW and desert receded. They found themselves excuses when data didn’t go their way.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Actually, the scientists who’ve been studying Global Warming are factoring in things like Volcanic Eruptions, Solar Cycles and Urban Climates.
The problem is, that even after those are factored in (and none of them seem to be particularly operative at the moment except for Urbanization) they can still not account for the steady rise in temperature, unless you factor in the 30% rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century or so. And then it makes sense.
Since they have already factored in CO2 from volcanoes, that leaves anthropogenic CO2 as the most likely factor. Looking at any urban skyline and the areas downwind from those urban areas tends to add weight to the argument.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
WOW I have not been on the computer very much this past week and a half or so, therefore I have a LOT!!!! of lists and comments to catch up with.
When I logged on today with time to read I just had to read this one first I knew it was going to be interesting, and I must say it has been very entertaining LOL.
I myself don’t feel that GW is as horrible and terrifying as some are saying.
I agree with what has been said many times, the Earth is going to go through her cycles of warming and cooling and there is not a damn thing that we can do about that. We do need to worry however about developing alternative fuels.
I am really looking forward to checking this list out tomorrow, after our regulars who are not online over the weekends get to work and get to reading and commenting!!
It should get even more entertaining once that happens, I am especially looking forward to Randall’s return.
This was a great Your View JFray!!!!!
April 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Oooh yay!! I’ve been waiting for this question to come up as a “Your View”!
I completely agree with you Jamie. It’s a ridiculous fad idea that is being propagated by the media, celebrities, and politicians who want to be “current” & “cool”. Granted, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and live more “green” if you will. But, thanks to Al Gore’s joke of a documentary, it’s being taken to a ridiculous extreme and shoved down our throats as gospel truth. Wasn’t there a whole global warming push back in the 80s too?
I love the idea of the owner of The Weather Channel suing Al Gore over the whole global warming farce. I say DO IT!
April 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Some rather disturbing comments here. I would expect there to be a few nutters out there still claiming global warming is a hoax, but it seems about half the comments express that view.
This is not a conspiracy theory!!!
There is plenty of credible evidence to back this up. Google ‘Global warming’ and do some research then make up your mind.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Learn to swim.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I can’t wait for Randall either – he doesn’t have to look things up in order to make sense.
I haven’t seen anyone mention global dimming and its effect re global warming. (google it and take a look at the difference in Southern California weather after they grounded airlines post 911) We have less and less sunshine reaching our planet and still the temperature is rising. How hot do you figure it would be without the mitigating effects of same?
I also have seen no mention as to what is going to happen if the ocean temperatures warm up enough to release all that methane trapped down there. Talk about greenhouse gases. This is really scary.
Randall – please tell me the methane thing is flawed. I can’t remember exactly but the ending is not good for us.
I can’t wait to get home from work and find out.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:14 am
hey where is Randall in this discussion, looks like the chip on his shoulder weighted him dowm
April 14th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Ok, im not sure if this has been mentioned, but has anyone made the connection between global warming, and the solar flares from the sun?
also, is it true that the graph that matches in Al Gore’s movie were shifted 800 years?
April 14th, 2008 at 5:59 am
OK OK i’ll admit it, i miss his comments (the church of listuniverse, bringing lives together
)
April 14th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Whether or not you believe our climate is changing, the fact of the matter is that we’re polluting the shit out of this planet, while at the same time we are still dedicating time and resources on trying to prove if global warming is even real.
But fortunately I think the majority of people know that something’s not right, and that something needs to be done.
So my view is that the destruction of this planets oceans and forests as a result of our actions is very real, and anyone who will argue that fact needs a bracing reality check upside their head.
Also lets just save ourselves some trouble and refer to it not as ‘global warming’, but as ‘global pollution’.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Whaaaa? We have to have Randall to legitimatize this list? Jeez, think for yourself for a change.
I read somewhere that the dude who started the Weather Channel is on some sort of rampage against global warning. He’s probably smarter than I am about the weather. I also am old enough to remember ’scientists’ saying of a coming ice age – it was in the New York Times. And excuse me for not trusting weather data from covered wagon times. People back then were still shitting outdoors, churning butter and shooting anything that moved from atop rail cars. I’ll believe it when the sky is truly falling.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:19 am
And “An Inconvenient Truth” was a mess. The only reason it won an Oscar was because Hollywood likes to congratulate itself on being so ‘broad minded’ on issues of the day. At the time Al Gore was spending over $30k in energy bills for his home, and flying all over the world to tell you to stop using so much energy.
It’s an inconvenient truth for everybody except Al Gore. He can burn as much fossil fuel as he wants, but shame on YOU for driving an SUV.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:29 am
i’ve heard, but i dont know where to find it, that this last winter was the worlds coldest one in a long time and both degrees the atmosphere temperature has risen in the last two hundred years were negated by it being so cold???? so there is no global warming anymore????? i think…
April 14th, 2008 at 6:55 am
bucslim: Jackass!
April 14th, 2008 at 7:02 am
As if we could have such a broad effect on the planet. There simply aren’t enough people, and certainly not enough industrialized nations; there never could be.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:10 am
srichards – Jackass the movie? I’m a jackass? Randall’s a jackass? Al Gore’s a jackass? The Weather Channel dude’s a jackass? Happy Gilmore’s a jackass? What? Which? Who?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I’m touched that some people want me in on this discussion. But my patience is thin when it comes to this topic—especially with knee-jerk conservatives and their like who wantonly and disingenuously ignore the data because they don’t want to relinquish some cherished bad habits–habits which do harm to the environment–and because they fear “the economy” will be ruined utterly if we stop treating the planet like a rubbish heap.
YES OF COURSE global warming is real, and OF COURSE we are contributing mightily to it. All the data is there, and VERY FEW *reputable* scientists challenge it. In fact, the number of these has declined *steeply* over the last few years.
And bucslim, don’t toss freakin’ TV meteorologists our way when we’re talking SCIENCE. The consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it. The guy who founded the Weather Channel doesn’t stand up in the face of that. Come off it.
Now…I am busy this week. The end of the semester looms. And my free time is otherwise devoted to entertaining my charming and beloved children and preparing the sailboat for its annual Spring launch.
All the right wing cranks can commence to toss all their vitriol out about this… I frankly don’t care. Lies and distortions don’t change the facts.
And Mom–the methane thing–it’s a serious concern, but the likelihood of it happening is entirely unknown as far as I’m aware. I’d worry more about the more immediate concerns attached to global warming–how it affects crop growth, sea levels, and the health of coral reefs and the fish populations around the world.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Randall – Fine, you don’t believe a guy who’s been doing weather forecasts and has completely immersed himself in the debate. John Coleman does stand up in the debate, and has been invited to speak about the subject all over the world. No problem, there are other sources.
“There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by sub-
stituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning.
Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other
extensive thermodynamic properties. Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics
because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations
yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them.
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions
and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures
will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human
experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement
of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible. It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dy-
namical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered.”
Taken from “Does Global Temperature Exist.” Essex, McKitrick and Andreesen – 2006 Journal of Thermodynamics
And you were alive back in the 70’s when *reputable* scientists were predicting another ice age.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
-weather forecasts for 50 years that is.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Global warming has nothing to do with humans. The earth goes through different processes naturally and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Anyone who thinks humans are capable of destroying this planet (with the except of with a nuclear bomb or something) is just plain ignorant. Sure, we’re breaking down *our* natural resources and making the air more dangerous for *us* to breathe, but who really thinks the planet itself won’t be here long after humans have died out?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Listen everyone: Forget whether it’s hot outside or cold, snowing or sunny. Global warming is based on the average temp worldwide on an annual basis, and you may be shocked at how steady this measure is from year to year and how the slightest change can have profound effects.
1 degree–just 1 degree change in this number is enough to change habitats and weather systems worldwide. A few more is enough to melt vast ice caps.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Alot of people didn’t realize that “Manbearpig” in the “Manbearpig” episode of South Park was supposed to be global warming. “You guuuuys! He’s totally real! I’m serial, so so serial, why won’t anyone listen to me!!”
April 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Bucslim – based on the quote you pasted, there is no practical way to determine the temperature of a large body at all…in effect you couldn’t even compare the temperature of the Sun to that of the Earth.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am
chersey – No one is arguing that humanity is destroying the actual planet – the problem is what you yourself mention, whether we are making it unable to sustain us.
And as for global warming not having to do with us – again, no one is arguing that the planet doesn’t have temperature cycles – the problem is that it looks like the rise that we are currently experiencing is accelerating faster than the previous cycles.
If you wish to argue against human caused global warming, this is where you should do it, folks. Don’t argue that it isn’t happening or that human’s can’t possible affect the planet – those are old and easily refuted arguments that just make you look stooooooopid.
Pay attention to details, not soundbites, people.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
bucslim:
NO. I do not take the word of some guy just because he’s been “doing weather forecasts,” nor do I take it just because he’s “immersed himself in the debate.” Neither of these makes him a qualified scientist–nor is either of them a reason to take his *word* over that of qualified scientists. Why don’t YOU take the words of scientists about this—the thousands who agree it is a REAL phenomenon and that WE are contributing to it? Why do you *prefer* to take the word of a *tiny* minority instead?
Why? Because you don’t want to hear the truth. You’re clinging, again, to your outmoded and discredited politics from 20+ years ago. Again–ostrich with his head in the sand.
What about all the science that agrees this is real? The scientists who support it? They’re all wrong, I suppose. And only touting global warming because they’re “liberals,” right? Who are out to destroy our way of life?
PLEASE. Enough of the bullshit.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
BASIC RULE OF LIFE: Actual peer-reviewed scientific data always trumps anecdotal or “gut feeling” or even “some guy said” evidence. There simply is no comparison. Deal with it.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Keep liberal and conservatives out of this. You guys acted like there aren’t Liberals and Moderates that are skeptics of Global Warming. I’m one.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Randall — “consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it.”
I can’t speak for the other softer sciences, but physicists (and yes, I am a physicist) think the “science” behind global warming is a bunch of crap. There isn’t a single, strong argument for significant man-made global warming out there of which I am aware. Indeed, applying statistical mechanics to the earth-sun system indicates that somewhere between 60%-100% of the recent warming is due to the sun. And except for a few rare exceptions, geologists, climatologists, biologists, or oceanographers don’t understand or won’t touch statistics or stat mech given the less rigorous nature of their work. So no, I don’t care what all those other scientists say; the facts will speak for themselves, and right now the facts behind global warming aren’t there. I’m willing to be convinced, but you’ll have to make a solid case.
That isn’t to say that we’re not causing warming, we certainly are. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere guarantees we’re warming the earth. The big question which no person on earth knows the answer to is the magnitude of the temperature increase the CO2 will cause. If it’s 1/1000th of a degree/CO2 double, there’s no need to worry. If it’s 1*C/CO2 doubling, then there’s some worry and we need to make some changes, but it’s not the end of the world, either.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Randall, I just posted the WORD of THREE scientists, you ass. You didn’t want to believe the word of a guy who certainly knows more about the subject than you do, so I found some scientists to back it up. You’re the one braying it up with the sheep believing every damn word the media puts out. What’s worse is you’re completely deaf to anyone who has a different opinion than yours – on every subject I might add. And I wasn’t the one to bring up liberal or conservative. What the fuck does that matter when there is debatable scientific data out there?
I liked you better when you made sense.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
bucslim: Wow…THREE scientists! I’m sure I could track down 3 historians who deny the holcaust took place. This however does not make it true.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
bucslim:
Don’t call me an ass… not when YOU’RE the one denying global warming… IN THE FACE OF AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS WHO SAY IT’S REAL.
Matt made the perfect point about this. You cough up three global warming-deniers… we could cough up three holocaust deniers just as easily (excellently played and put, Matt). Would that convince you of anything?
I remind you that I ALWAYS MAKE SENSE, bucslim… so far I’ve seen one occasion after another where you FAIL to, however.
And no, I repeat… I WILL NOT take the word of some TV weatherman over the word of accredited and qualified and world-known scientists, who have published finding after finding supporting the theory that humankind is contributing to global warming.
What the hell is your problem with this? Clearly it’s politically motivated… you don’t want the “liberals” telling you that you can’t drive your gas-guzzling car or SUV anymore, or telling you that you can’t have your big house with its enormous carbon footprint… or whatever the hell your problem is. Again—something you’ve evinced on this site TIME AND TIME AGAIN—you evidently don’t give a damn about the rest of humanity or the earth itself—like all knee-jerk conservatives, you don’t want to take responsibility for these things, you just want to live your goddamned selfish life. I’ve heard you talk like this again and again here, so don’t deny it. You can say you were joking–but humor gives people away, man.
It’s a very simple thing, bucslim. There is a great deal of carbon in the earth. Fortunately for us, up to now the bulk of it has resides IN the earth and the seas, NOT in the atmosphere. Over time it leeches into the atmosphere anyway—but we are ONLY making things worse by relying as we do on fossil fuels without a care for reigning the usage in as much as possible, and replacing them with energy systems that do not dump carbon into the atmosphere, or don’t dump anywhere near as much: Nuclear, solar, wind and hydroelectric.
BUT NO… GOD FORBID we do *anything* to endanger the economy–because all that’s important is that overweight, self-centered, provincial assholes living in gated communities of 10,000 sq. foot houses with SUVs they don’t need can go on with their selfish, bourgeois, suburban lives, chewing up resources like there’s no tomorrow.
I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE… my opinions on global warming are NOT driven by the media… my opinions on it, rather, are INFORMED by scientists that I KNOW PERSONALLY and others whose work I’m acquainted with. They are *overwhelmingly* in the majority on this question.
So don’t prattle on to ME about “sheep” and believing “every damn word the media puts out.” That’s a sad and transparent attack and it won’t wash, pal.
I still like you man, but Jesus effin’ Christ—get over this. Even if global warming isn’t the doom and gloom some people make it out to be, it does NO service to us or our children or THEIR children to continue on as we have. Why take the bloody RISK? The evidence is there, the science is there. Even if it ended up only being modestly as bad as some say—what the hell good does it do ANY of us to keep pushing it?
April 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
hmm… is it safe to say that
A) Humans are undeniably contributing to Global Warming
B) The Sun, and other natural planetary phenomenon is also a cause of Global Warming
C) A lot of the information revolving around this topic is exaggerated
D) Pie is good
April 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Louis:
With all due respect, I work at a MAJOR Northeastern University… and know several physicists who totally agree with the consensus of their colleagues in the other sciences (and I don’t consider biology or geology to be “soft” sciences, dude. That’s typical physicist snobbery. *Economics* is a soft science. Anthropology is a soft science. MAYBE you can make a case for climatology–though don’t tell *them* that. But geology? Please.)
I never said global warming was the end of the world—I’m no doomsayer. But the fact is–and as you say–we ARE contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. This can only make things worse. Why go on with it when we can do things to reign it in? Why take the risk, gambling with something that we KNOW to be potentially dangerous? YOU don’t know what the risks might prove to be if the temperature spikes to this or that point—it isn’t just OUR well-being we’re talking about here, but that of countless other species on the planet.
But biology is just a “soft” science, right? Life doesn’t fit well into the equations of some physicists.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Leave the god damn liberal and conservative out of this, Jesus H. Christ.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
You have it ALL WRONG. Don’t be foolish; climate change is occurring but forget about our contribution cos our contribution is no more that a glass of water tipped into a lake. Humans lately have been averaging 26 gigatonnes of carbon emissions each year. That sounds like a lot but really inst when at first compared to the 70 gigatonnes emitted from the oceans and then the 440 gigatonnes form plants.
Global climate change will do what ever it so desires and there isn’t a thing we can do about it. what we need to do is teach the third world about birth control and teeach them to save themselves.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I’m all for preservation of rain forest, clean fuel, clean air, clean water, electric car, solar energy, but that doesn’t mean I have to just blindly accept Global Warming. Reduction of CO2 and other pollutants are good in my opinion, but only because for the reduction of acid rain, and other health problem, etc.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
O yes of course im not saying lets go rape the place for resources. cleaning the air of pollutants will get rid of smog. replanting the rain forest will ensure the survival of many endangered species. Lets stop buying bottles of water aye! do you know how much plastic get dumped every year?
In my previous comment i was trying to take the ‘we are destroying the earth in an irreversible way’ out of the picture. Prepare the world pop for climate change is what we should be focusing on.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Randall,
Ah, yes, obscure the issue with emotions with a little jab at the end. I obviously can’t evaluate the opinions of other fields, I’m just to narrow minded since I demand evidence. How’s that working out?
I’m working at an Ivy, myself. And yes, sure, biology/geology is certainly harder than econ., but biology/geology is much, much softer than physics. There can be little doubt about that; and this is an important point when it comes to evaluating climate models or statistcally couple complex systems. I certainly trust bio/geo/climatologist people outside this range, but I’ve learned that, in general, they are very poor at properly evaluating models/stats. In general, their experiments have had too little data or too little accuracy to demand they they devolop these skills. That is certainly quite relevant to any discussion about the merits of their arguements. That isn’t to say that what they do isn’t all well and good; I know I’d be a crappy biologist, but one does need to recognize the limitations of their knowledge.
Oh, sure, reigning in CO2 is just fine, but it’s all about how high of a cost you’re willing to pay to reign in the CO2 emissions. (Just making up some numbers), maybe you can cut the first 10% of emissions at $1/ton, and it’s worth doing that given an assessment of the risk. Maybe the next 10% costs $5/ton, and the next 10% $15/ton. At some point, given the risks involved, it doesn’t make sense to reduce CO2. At this point, however, the risks are so small that other issues (smog, for instance) are a more compelling argument to reduce fossil fuel usage than manmade global warming.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Or we could cut most in one feel swoop by developing new cheap and green energy sources. I think it’s a better investment
April 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Bucslim;
I don’t need Randall to think for me, or form my opinions. See where my comments are? I also commented on global warming over on the Scientific frauds and hoaxes list during a conversation with Slick.
I do appreciate someone with an academic background who can either confirm my opinion with proper sources or dash it to little pieces. I have been too busy living my blue collar life to take the time to make notes. Unless demanded I never cite sources or look it up on Wikipedia. I know stuff because I am interested, not because I have to write a paper on it.
Funny thing eh? My husband is an auto worker suffering an unfair tax burden, I come from a military family, NCO (not an officer for those of you not in the know), and my world view is closer to Randall’s than to yours.
Global warming is not a liberal cause to undermine the American Way, it is a global cause to better the earth. The figure I’ve seen tossed about is 25%. A twenty-five percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial era. That is a significant number. The oceans and our remaining forested/green areas can only lock up so much carbon. It was in balance for a billion years or so. I personally don’t want to find out how much is too much. By then it is too late. It is up to the industrialized west to pave the way. Like it or not, we can afford it. Tax incentives, tax penalties,proper enforcement of current environmental laws, more money for research, that sort of thing. Sure it may affect my standard of living; most worthwhile things require some sacrifice. But I really don’t want to give up my ‘88 5.0 litre Mustang.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Randall – and overwhelming number of reputable scientists said back in the 70’s that we are headed for another ice age. You still haven’t addressed that. There’s plenty of published papers about that.
My problem with all of this is the very people who are demanding change in the face of our alleged doom are usually the biggest hypocrites. It is inescapable, unless you are living in a shack in Sheep Shit, Idaho riding a horse to work, growing your own food, making your own furniture and heating your own house with a wood fire and not eating off your own pottery, you are contributing to global warming (allegedly) Just about everything you use comes from fossil fuel – your clothes, your car, the keyboard you use to flame me, the food you eat is delivered by big-ass trucks that burn diesel with rubber tires on asphalt roads. On top of that the number one product of your intake of oxygen is good ole’ CO2. And then you turn around and tell me that my lifestyle is is causing global warming? That’s what pisses me off the most Randall, when douchebags like Al Gore try to somehow shame the rest of us into thinking that we’re the problem, while he burns more jet fuel than scores of Americans as he puddle jumps around the globe with his silly message of certain doom. I don’t buy it, it’s another scam to set policy.
P.S. Randall, I don’t drive an SUV, I drive a Toyota Dorkmobile that gets 30mpg in town. And drop this crap about me being a selfish knee-jerk conservative. Dude, you don’t even know me. You don’t know anything about the charitable things I’ve done.
And thanks Matt for pointing out that I presented just three scientists. No one else here has presented anything like that, they’ve just spewed out the same tired crap that they heard on CNN. Never mind the fact that there is data that is debatable. And I presented it. I backed up my claim with some fact. But I’m sure you didn’t even read what they said, you just pointed to some stupid shit about the holocaust. That makes your point? Why not contribute something about what they actually said?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mom – I don’t mind the difference of opinion. Everyone’s entitled to it. I appreciate your viewpoint. I’m just not swallowing this one. I’ve heard plenty of stuff from reputable people who say the data is debatable.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
bucslim: You might wanna check out this link…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/
Got any more “facts” you’d like to share with us?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Wow, does EVERYTHING have to be a liberal vs conservative debate??? FOR THE LOVE!!! I know plenty of conservatives who are very earth conscience and plenty of liberals who drive big gas guzzling SUVs.
No one is going to be swayed by name calling and stereotyping.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:01 am
I think it is wholly understandable that there are many who feel skeptical about global warming. Neither the scientific community nor the politicians have covered themselves in glory over all of this.
The scientists :
The singlemost piece of information that shapes the public’s perception of “global warming” is arguably the “hockey-stick” (or “j-curve”) graph used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. This graph has been central to the whole global warming debate, and was central to the original report published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) which gave the global warming “movement” its major impetus.
This report – the j-curve in particular – has since been largely undermined, not least by a study commissioned by the US Senate, which deemed the j-curve invalid, having studied its assumptions. For one thing, the IPCC model produced a j-curve even when fed random white noise data. There were also relevant segments of data not input into the model which would apparently have presented a much different picture.
There is other bad science in this report; the IPCC used computer models to determine heat-energy factors with respect to global warming when they could have simply calculated these by using a law of physics (Stefan-Boltzman Law); and guess what? Their own calculation of this factor exaggerated the warming effect of greenhouse gases by 600% as compared to the result that the Boltzman law would have easily provided had they chosen to use it.
It also seems that when it comes to the “warming” bit, there is no reliable and consistent “measure” being applied. eg. what, exactly, is the “global mean temperature” (or similar description that is applied)? How is it measured ? etc. Our scientists are even arguing over this fairly fundamental factor.
On a more general note, I am sure that the public recalls being unduly scared or misled to varying degrees by “experts” over issues such as DDT being cancerous, the Y2K bug’s ability to rip the face off of your network, Atkins is bad, Atkins is good, recommended daily salt allowance, drink a gazillion liters of water a day; the list goes on.
The politicians :
In the UK it seems that anything remotely concerned with CO2 or “climate change” attracts a tax or a social stigma. We have a Congestion Charge in London designed to – as it says on the tin – reduce traffic congestion in London. And it seemed to work for a time. Now the same scheme is radically increasing its daily tariff and extending its zonal reach and will be charging on vehicle carbon emission levels to up to $50 per day – to drive though my own city!!??
But how exactly are these funds (and previous money raised in the name of climate change) being used to fight global warming ? or pollution ? Nobody seems to know.
Britain’s climate-change taxes hit all forms of electricity generation, even if they don’t emit CO2 !! Which is all the more bizarre given that the UK produces less than 2% of global CO2 emissions, amounting to a global climatic effect that is measured in thousandths of a degree.
Also…the European Union rules allow for more emissions to be traded than are being emitted !!??
Insanity!
My own take on all of this (aside from my cynicism towards the politicians) is possibly akin to that of the physicist Freeman Dyson : I have no problem in accepting that global climate is changing, but I have a healthy skepticism towards the models used to extrapolate the extent of the outcome.
From personal experience in designing complex financial risk models I am well aware of the sensitivities of such models or algorithms to changes in underlying assumptions.
In my own industry (banking/finance), for example, I also recall the inglorious demise of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund in the late 1990’s. LTCM not only had 2 Nobel Prize winners amongst its directors, one of them was a leading developer of the financial model that wholly re-write the book on risk management (Myron Scholes). And guess what – for all his acknowledged expertise, the adage was proven that just because you can measure the risk, it doesn’t mean that you understand it or predict its outcome.
On the whole I am pleased scientists such as Louis are looking for reliable proof or data – I would expect nothing less. And whilst basic common sense tells us that it has to be beneficial, in any case, to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, nothing material is going to be achieved unless developing nations buy into the program. China, for example, is building 2 new *coal fired* power stations every week on average! And who are we to deny their people basic essentials of life such as reliable electricity supplies ? Unless they become part of the solution, everything else is of marginal influence at best.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Matt
Information on that realclimate website is not necessarily without its biases. I mention the reliability of the famous “hockey stick” chart popularised by Al Gore in my post above.
The guys who came up with that chart and apparently continue to try and justify it are behind realclimate.com
I’m not saying they are junk scientists or that their information is to be disregarded…only that one should (as you will know) be wary of the “motivation” behind any site propounding science.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:15 am
“I work at a MAJOR Northeastern University” (Randall)
“I’m working at an Ivy, myself” (Louis)
Gotta love a pissing contest
Randall – Louis has confessed to being a physicist; what is your field? I’m guessing it’s not in a *soft* science
Actually, your talk of “soft” versus “hard” science reminds me of my fellow NZ’er Ernest Rutherford who famously quipped : “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.”
Where it gets even more ironic is that Rutherford had a distain for Chemists. But he didn’t let this stand in the way when he accepted his Nobel Prize in 1908 for….Chemistry !
April 15th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Kiwiboi; What no earmarking of carbon tax revenue for research? Taxing clean energy producers? Sounds much more like a grab for revenue than a sound environmental policy. No wonder Jeremy Clarkson calls them enviro”mental”ists in Britain. I actually wouldn’t mind paying extra to drive my fast car, if the funds were used to find a clean way to provide all that horsepower.
You are correct about requiring global participation, but we must start somewhere. The fact that China and other countries are not participating, does not mean we should use it as an excuse to continue our crappy practices. Personally I would love to see a shake up of the status quo. Big oil is big business, and they intrude upon my life all the time. I swear to god American Public policy is a direct result of this. You’re an economist, don’t you agree? Social and environmental concerns always take a back seat to profit and maintaining the power structure.
And no, I didn’t get on the Y2K bandwagon, and I know over-use of DDT caused a concentration down the food chain. I’m not so sure about the cancer causing, I think there is anecdotal evidence (maybe because of poor safety regulations at the time, ie; no respirators.) that those applying it have higher incidences of cancer. But the general public? I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
Why is it people no longer believe in moderation? It appears to be all but extinct in western society. I hear (often academics) people sneer at common-sense, but applied to day to day living, it would do more for the environment than all the Al Gore movies you could watch. Don’t buy what you don’t need, recycle what you can, repair rather than replace. Walk to the corner store, avail yourself of public transportation, do your best to get off the consumer band wagon. Who the hell needs a new car every two years? And don’t tell me about emissions being lower in a new car. The energy cost to produce the new car more than eats up the emission savings.
Moderation in all things.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am
“You’re an economist”
Mom – as I have said a couple of times in other postings…I am NOT an economist (God forbid!) And I hope I don’t sound like one !!
The point about DDT was a little different than how you are interpreting it. DDT was banned on the basis of flawed science; it is relatively harmless to humans.
“The fact that China and other countries are not participating, does not mean we should use it as an excuse to continue our crappy practices.”
But without their buy-in our efforts will likely have minimal impact on a global scale. Which makes it all seem like a pointless exercise to me…
April 15th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Global warming is a lie. Its big governments newest ploy to diminish your rights and seperate you from your money. Carbon credits? paid to whom and who made them the arbitor?
Al Gore and his little clan of inbreds ought to be imprisoned for this whole fiasco. Im still recovering from Global cooling, the ozone hole, acid rain, ALAR, killer bees, etc etc.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Oh my gosh. I just had a conversation with someone who I thought was very smart on Sunday. Sadly, that conversation proved me wrong. She told me she thinks that the environment is FINE. It all came about because I was explaining what self sufficient living is and why I am interested in doing it. My main reason is it is SOOOO much cheaper than anything else. But, she latched on to the environment part and just kept telling me it’s all democrats saying that and they are just making it up. I honestly wanted to smack her. Unfortunately we were in church and… it just didn’t seem right. I can’t stand close minded people!
April 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am
“I honestly wanted to smack her. Unfortunately we were in church and… it just didn’t seem right.”
ROFLMAO
April 15th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I’m a conservative, and I think global warming is real. Global cooling is also real. To anyone who says global warming isn’t real, tell me how, exactly, earth got out of the Ice Age? Where’d the woolly mammoths go? And it’s clear that humans have contributed to global warming, seeing as everything that is based in carbon gives off a “carbon footprint.” But the extent of human contribution? I’m not too sure on that front. I do know that saving energy = less money paid out = better for you and me!
April 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Biofuels or global hunger:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml
April 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The only cause of ‘Global Warming’ is the sun. Face it boys and girls, we live on a planet that orbits a variable star. To further define the source of the hysteria, follow the money. Who gets rich selling ‘polution credits’?
Jim
April 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
kiwiboi; I thought (geez another misconception bites the dust) DDT was banned because of its tendency to concentrate down the food chain. I thought I learned since then that it was the indiscriminate use of it that caused the problem. Not using it judiciously. What exactly was the junk science? By the way isn’t the stuff they use now for mosquitoes bad too? We have a creek in our back yard, we border on a military base, they turn the water disgusting yellow every year to combat the critters.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
bucslim: Honestly, we could use a global famine. Thin the herds a bit. Natural selection at its finest.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Mom – I was referring to the fact that DDT was banned on grounds of danger to humans. In fact it is not especially harmful to us; you can – within reason, of course – eat it! And the consequences of this have been extraordinary in terms of avoidable human deaths.
Let me paste my comment from the 10 Books that Changed America list (talking about Silent Spring) :
…notwithstanding that Carson (nor anybody else) was ever able to present any substantive negative link between DDT and human mortality (arguably, animal mortality too, if you want to really press the point), the fact remains that her book is certainly a contender for this list.
I read an interesting article some time ago (written, if I remember correctly by one of Carson’s colleagues) that reasoned that her motivation was animal/wildlife welfare – she worked for the US Animal/Fisheries dept – but she realised that leveraging human self-interest would achieve more if she were able to make a case that DDT was harmful to humans. That is to say..people would be much more likely to react if the threat was against themselves than against animals etc.
One can only hope that Carson was, at least, well-intentioned…
April 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“I read an interesting article some time ago (written, if I remember correctly by one of Carson’s colleagues) that reasoned that her motivation was animal/wildlife welfare – she worked for the US Animal/Fisheries dept – but she realised that leveraging human self-interest would achieve more if she were able to make a case that DDT was harmful to humans. That is to say..people would be much more likely to react if the threat was against themselves than against animals etc.”
kiwiboi: I agree with you about Silent Spring. That comment in particular was the topic of an intense discussion at a conference in the philosophy of science dept. at my school that I recently attended.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Slick – yes. A sad story indeed.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
kiwiboi: In addition, something I’m sure you probably already mentioned, but the banning of DDT ended up being more of a curse than a blessing. Deaths related to malaria – a disease carried by the mosquitos DDT was meant to wipe out – increased dramatically worldwide after it was banned. We’re talking in the millions here. Given how (relatively) harmless DDT actually turned out to be, I’d say it did far more damage than good.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Very true Slick. I, too, have seen estimates of avoidable deaths amounting to millions due to the DDT ban. Even if the “true” figure is a fraction of this, it is a tragedy.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Will you two just get a room and leave us out of the details? Thanks.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
MplsBrad: I find that funny since you were the one who propositioned me in the first place. What’s wrong? Can’t handle the rejection?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t think either of those options is correct.
Global Warming is happening, duh, it’s natural,
but whether we are to blame for speeding it up and all,
well, I don’t think we know nearly enough about the environment, the earth, or nature to do anything about it!
We should shut up about global warming, but try to be more Co2/environmentally friendly, because that’s just a nice thing to do!
April 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Come on guys. Let’s think. Can we really have an effect on the weather? If the Earth really is getting warmer, which i have a hard time believing, there isn’t a thing we can do about it. So yes, don’t litter. Be respectful to this Earth that God has given us to take care of. And you people that are so worried about over population, don’t question God’s plan. He’s in control, and he knows what’s best. Have a little trust people
April 16th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Oh, great. Now you are bringing an Imaginary Friend In The Sky into the debate. Haven’t we outgrown religion as a species? Why are we always decades behind the Europeans in things (universal healthcare, atheism)? OF COURSE WE CAN AFFECT THE WEATHER!!! Do you remember the fluorocarbon problem back in the 70’s? We determined that man was destroying the ozone, we banned the cause, and all is good. We need a manmade solution to an obviously manmade problem. And we need it SOON.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:18 am
MplsBrad: actually – you raise a good point – Ozone Depletion was the 70s and 80s version of Global Warming. It is now the general scientific consensus that it is naturally occurring – primarily due to solar activity. It is a very good example of science telling us one thing (and causing a lot of hysteria) and later realizing it was not true. Ozone depletion mythology is still around, but the harbingers of doom that forced us to change our lifestyles for it are no longer talking about it – just as those who deicize global warming will do with the current hysteria passes – they will just find something else to fear and to try to force the rest of us to fear. I would not be surprised if many of the older global warming propagandists were also ozone-depletion propagandists.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:38 am
I think it’s Sean Connery’s character from that shitty Avengers movie who’s causing all the problems. Or maybe it’s Arnold Schwartzenegger’s character from that shitty Batman movie.
Oh, wait, they were making it freeze. Hows come shitty villains from shitty movies who can control the weather is always making it colder?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Don’t forget Montgomery Burns putting up the big umbrella to block the sun from warming Springfield!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:12 am
No, global warming is not real.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
When EPA acted against DDT there were no fewer than four court decisions that determined DDT was an inherent danger — two of them from the D.C. Circuit with EPA as a defendant. In those two cases, the judges ordered EPA to speed up its action, since there was no question scientifically about the dangers of DDT. EPA’s task was to weigh the dangers against the benefits.
Against the benefits of DDT, EPA weighed the considerably harms that resulted when DDT killed all the predators of disease vectors. Mosquitoes will spring right back after a DDT spraying, but populations of their predators are much slower to recover. Consequently, dosing with DDT frequently saw a temporary reduction in mosquitoes (and malaria, for example), but a rebound of the mosquitoes and the diseases they carried that propelled the disease rates much higher than they would have gone otherwise.
DDT was determined to be a deadly toxin to all but the larger mammals, human sized and above; it is a mammal carcinogen, and a “probable” human carcinogen (don’t take my word for it — check the CDC listing, or the American Cancer Society, or World Health Organization).
But it was not banned because of its effects on humans. It was banned because of its effects on wildlife.
Check out the DDT articles on Bug Girl’s Blog, or on Deltoid (at the Seed Magazine science blogs site), or at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, or at Some Are Boojums.
DDT was banned because it’s a deadly toxin in the environment. While not acutely toxic to humans, it is acutely toxic to almost everything else. In humans it just causes nerve disorders, shrunken male sex organs, swollen mammaries in males, premature puberty in girls, and cancers in the offspring of exposed women. Plus it nearly killed off bald eagles, osprey, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans (all predators — DDT is roughest on bird predators).
Ironically, in the past decade, several nations have adopted Rachel Carson’s plan of integrated pest management, cutting malaria rates in half. Had we adopted her program when she proposed it in 1962, millions of lives could have been saved.
No study has ever found error or incorrect conclusions in Carson’s book, nor in any of the studies she cited (there are 53 pages of footnotes in the back). However, as Discover magazine noted last November, more than 1,000 studies have been done that confirm Carson’s conclusions about the harms of DDT, especially to birds.
Carson was correctly named one of the 100 most influential scientists of the 20th century by Time magazine, and her book remains a classic in careful research and environmental reporting — plus it is beautifully written.
Do I detect that few others have actually read it?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Ed Darrell – I have, indeed, read the book and stand by every word I wrote.
Silent Spring is junk science. As far as being “a classic in careful research and environmental reporting” that is pure nonsense.
Whilst I hesitate to use Fox as a reference, they have some salient points all in one place on their site :
“Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction never materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout – an outbreak later attributed to aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of certain fungi.”
“After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the (EPA) judge concluded “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway. Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn’t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just “internal memos.”
This wasn’t surprising given Ruckleshaus’ bias.”
“Rachel Carson has been canonized by environmental activists. Ruckleshaus has had a successful business career and advised presidential candidate George W. Bush. The EDF and National Audubon Society raise millions of dollars annually.
They built their “success” on junk science and the bodies of third world children.”
April 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
jfrater: You are completely full of it and obviously incapable of telling fact from fiction.
“Ozone Depletion was the 70s and 80s version of Global Warming. It is now the general scientific consensus that it is naturally occurring – primarily due to solar activity.”
This statement is just plain wrong. Ozone depletion is caused by the CFC’s that we’d been pumping into the atmosphere, hence why their use has been phased out. Global warming is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity since the start of the industrial revolution. Both these ideas have scientific consenus. The only debate amongst scientists regarding global warming is the effects it will have in the future, ie. how much hotter will it get, how high will sea levels rise, etc.
You and bucslim obviously get your information from the same sources. No doubt from one of these free market think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute. These institutes specialise in casting doubt over the science of such things as global warming, the harmful effects of second-hand smoking and ozone depletion. Why do they do this? To put doubt into the minds of the public. If the public aren’t convinced of the science behind these ideas the less supportive they’ll be of government regulations, such as the Kyoto protocol. And why don’t they like regulation? Because it goes against the free market idealogy that they prescibe to.
Oh and guess where the George C. Marshall Institute gets some of its funding from? ExxonMobil. Funny that.
So thanks to a few peoples blind faith in the invisble hand of the market, we the public are being feed a load of bullshit. I for one don’t like being bulshitted.
Dig deeper people. The truth is out there.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Matt: can you please cite the scientific papers published in the last 2 years that support the idea that humans caused the depletion in the ozone layer? As far as I can tell, virtually all scientists now agree that the ozone hole grows and shrinks in a natural cycle based primarily on solar activity. The hole is still there – it is still big – it hasn’t gone away since we made CFCs illegal. It is all very well for you to call me a liar – but at least have the decency to show some evidence for your statement. As for the Kyoto protocol – it will be an artefact of the global warming hysteria in a number of years – I guarantee it.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Matt: The Evil Wiki states: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) are compounds containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon only, that is they contain no hydrogen. They were formerly used widely in industry, for example as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents. Their use has been regularly prohibited by the Montreal Protocol, because of effects on the ozone layer (see ozone depletion). They are also powerful greenhouse gases, in terms of carbon dioxide equivalence (over a time period of one hundred years) between 5000 and 8100 per kg. CFC’s have half-lives between 50-100 years, so their presence in the atmosphere and reactivity with ozone is long lived. One CFC molecule typically degrades around 10,000 ozone molecules before its removal, but this number can sometimes be in the millions.
For info on the effects of Carbon Dioxide see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Even the “Blind” can see that you are stating THE SAME THING. CFCs AND CO2 have the same effects on the environment. The Great Hole in the sky is caused by ANYTHING that reacts with the molecule O3.
“The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl), and atomic bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of manmade organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons.[citation needed] These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules. Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, have been dropping by 4% per decade. Over approximately 5% of the Earth’s surface, around the north and south poles, much larger (but seasonal) declines have been seen; these are the ozone holes.”
I draw your attention Here: “where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light” Now where do you think the Ultraviolet light came from. I doubt that your sun lamp at home can produce enough UV to destabilize the Ozone layer.
You have done no more than prove yourself to be a previously mentioned “Nutjob” and will more than likely never be able to sustain an argument in these lists. Hopefully, you can take the pointing and laughing.
My apologies Jamie for the length, very unlike me I know.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Matt, for a guy who doesn’t like to be bullshitted, you certainly are swallowing a load of it. No, I didn’t get my source from the George C. Marshall Institute. Again, since you didn’t bother to read the quote from the Journal of Thermodynamics and instead chosed to point out that I had only quoted three scientists, an subsequently didn’t comment on what they actually had to say, then your little rant is pointless.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
jfrater: Yeah sure. How about this report from the World Meteorological Organization released in 2006:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ozone_asst_report.html
Pretty weighty stuff, but heres a quote from page 21 of the executive summary that backs what I said
in my previous post:
“Our basic understanding that anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances have been principal cause of
the ozone depletion over the past few decades has been strenghtened.”
Good enough for you? Or are you going to claim that the report is nothing but left-wing propaganda?
Now can you provide any credible evidence to back up your argument?
Oh and I’m the one who believes in conspiracy theories am I? How ironic.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
bucslim: Yes I did read the paper. Reads like a bit of sophistry to me.
Now lets get some background information on one of authors of this paper, Ross McKitrick. Wikipedia tells me that he is a contributing writer for the George C. Marshall Institute as well as being a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute. What is the Fraser Institute? Surprise, surprise its another free market promoting “think tank”. And who provides some of their funding? Well its those lovable guys at ExxonMobil!
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870
Crimanon: Sorry I don’t quite understand what your getting at there and quite frankly it seems neither to you.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Bucslim: “Whaaaa? We have to have Randall to legitimatize this list? Jeez, think for yourself for a change.”
Just for the record, I did not in any way say that I wanted Randall to “legitimatize” this list and I very much think for myself.
My statement was this “[b]I am really looking forward to checking this list out tomorrow, after our regulars who are not online over the weekends get to work and get to reading and commenting!!
[/b]
It should get even more [i]entertaining[/i] once that happens, I am especially looking forward to Randall’s return.
”
I enjoy certain peoples comments and your response is one of the reasons that I don’t post comments very often. You take someones statement and twist it around and then insult the person. That is just wrong on so many levels
April 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I don’t deny global warming. In fact, it would be nice if we tried to be more environmentally friendly. What really bugs me, though, is what children are being told about this. My daughter (9 years old) comes home every week terrified. They have watched “An Inconvenient Truth” twice now, and they are only in fourth grade. As far as I’m concerned, we should be able to teach our children what we want in our own homes. I am not trying to drag children into this, just encouraging others to think about the effects this hysteria will have on them once this is settled.
P.S. I know that this will probably start a whole different debate.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Matt: You’re spouting info screaming “the man is keeping you blind” Yet you quote from the WMO, the UNs weather chumps. The UN? Speaking of biases.
You know what, never mind, I’d have to spell This out for you too.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:57 am
stormy617 – point taken.
My meaning gets lost sometimes without the tone and inflection of speaking to someone face to face. Randall and I insult each other almost on a daily basis. For the most part, I don’t take the insults from him personally, on the contrary, I enjoy debating with him. Sometimes I think we both have a tendency to go over the line to make our points. On the other hand, this is the internet, and posting flames is part of the fun.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Matt – you posted something from realclimate.org and you accuse me of being biased by ExxonMobil? Now that’s funny!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Matt, Bucslim; I think you’re both right when it comes to ozone depletion. Go read all the articles at scientific american. Are they all biased too? Anyhow they appear to be in agreement. CFC’s contribute to ozone depletion along with cosmic rays and a bunch of other stuff too. They are modifying climate models as we speak.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:10 am
maybe global warming is real but i believe that the earth has the ability to heal itself. i also believe that we will evolve to meet our surroundigs. the temperature may go up but we will adopt to it. those who can’t …die.
that is evolution.
with regrds to al gore…how is he going around the earth to deliver his speeches on global awarming?
jet? private or commercial? i think he drives an suv..so he is also part of the problem..so pelase stop the blame game…
April 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am
IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The single most contributor to green house gas in the atmosphere is NOT man. In fact, it is a natural source. Volcanoes contribute more CO2, and other GHG to the atmosphere than any nation on the planet. One volcanic eruption puts so much gas and dirt into the atmosphere that it can offset 10 years of co2 reduction efforts and policies instilled by man.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I think one should visit India and see how there is drastic change temparature during summer … Its been 7 years now in India(from England).. and previously the summers which was never more than 30 degree centigrates is now above 40 from last year… We cannot step out between 10 AM – 5 PM… you would not only get tanned but also skin infection…
Isn’t that GLobal Warming if no then what is it???
BTW I am in Southern part of India
April 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I’m aware that i’m a little late contributing to this, but in regards to the argument between Matt and jfrater (180/181) scientists still have a very limited idea of what’s going on with the ozone layer. They 100% agree that ozone depletion is a naturally occurring process, and that the ozone hole increases and decreases naturally with time, however, CFC’s are decidedly dangerous because it takes them many, many years to dissipate in the atmosphere, so even if they were completely cut out, it would be many decades before we could see a result in the sky.
Ozone is a naturally occurring chemical in the stratosphere, and the reason CFC’s are viably bad for it, is almost exclusively because of the chlorine ion contained in it. I aologise if i come off as trying to teach science to 3 year olds, but for those who don’t know, ozone (O3 as oposed to O2 which we use to you know, live) occurs naturally in the stratosphere, however is naturally decomposed by the presence of UV radiation. The chloride ion essentially mimics the UV radiation, by breaking apart the unstable ozone into an oxide ion, and an oxygen molecule. At such low pressures, it’s virtually impossible for the oxide to find another oxide to react with, so it instead breaks down another ozone molecule to form two oxygen molecules. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be so bad, because the UV radiation can go right ahead and reform some ozone, but since the net reaction here is two ozone molecules going to 3 oxygen molecules, the chlorine ion hangs around and catalyses the decomposition of ozone even further. For anyone still with me here, this essentially means, that even though they’ve yet to decide whether or not CFC’s do aaaanything at all, it’s entirely credible that they might do, but we won’t know for a while.
However, and this is where i pick a side in the argument, they’ve also demonstrated with certainty that CO2, one of the most common substances on earth, is able to do very much the same thing, so they’re almost certainly leaning towards the ‘CFC’s did shitall’ side of the argument. But they don’t really know for certain, that’s why they cut out CFC’s just as a safety measure and replaced them with HFCs (hydrogen instead of chlorine). So Matt, you’re essentially absolutely wrong, you’re basing your information on stuff that was considered truth about 5 years ago.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
carpe_noctem: Can you provide me with links to some up to date information on ozone depletion to back up your case?
Incidently what is your view on global warming?
April 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Matt: looking for these? The dates are mixed, sorry. But there is a pattern.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/multi/buv-toms.gif
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/10/03/gallery/ozonehole_zoom.jpg
April 19th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
carpe_noctem:
Whoa there, buckaroo. Let’s not hit and run on the debate about CFC’s (or for that matter global warming). Sometimes those in the sciences have a tendency to think they can talk to the general public the way they do to each other. Well, that’s a mistake. Our friends and colleagues in the happy science world usually understand that when we theorize and raise questions and then raise more questions that we are…. simply theorizing and raising questions–often while still agreeing on the basic premise behind an acknowledged issue. The public, however, doesn’t hear it that way. They think, rather, that they’ve heard one thing… then a short time later scientists are saying something else entirely. It confuses people and causes undue bickering… and then even politics gets dragged into it.
I come down on no particular side in regards to the question on CFCs. Clearly, as you say, the primary issue was that they take so long to break down. Other than that—we know little (as you also said). But let’s leave it at that. Matt may or may not be too gung ho with his argument… but I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s “essentially absolutely wrong.” There’s still just too much we don’t actually know—and that goes for global warming as well.
The big problem with these environmental questions that scientists must remember is that there are political interests waiting in the wings to pounce on any semblance of doubt or reasonable intellectual debate on these hot topics. Witness the (largely politically motivated) vitriol displayed on this one web site against global warming. Me, I look at this issue, at the science that’s been done to support it, at the glaring evidence… and it all tells me that A) there’s something more going on here than a mere cyclical, ordinary, natural change in the environment while B) I acknowledge freely that we can’t be much more specific than that… BUT C) why in god’s name take a stupid risk with our future? We’ve been living pretty damn dirty–in one form or another–for the last hundred or so years, and while some attention has been paid to the matter, at the same time industrialization has increased… as has population. It seems quite reasonable to assume that since we are helping to release CO2 into the atmosphere (we can hardly do otherwise unless we want to go back to living a completely pastoral, non-technological existence… along with perhaps doing away with huge numbers of our fellow creatures) and that the continued release of CO2 seems to clearly have some alarming effects on our environment—that we might want to curtail what we can and seek alternatives.
Now, I grant you—you didn’t weigh in on global warming, you addressed the ozone issue. But what I’m saying is that the two questions are interlinked in the sense that laymen see none of the real work and real questioning going on about these matters—they just receive the simple version—and that’s really all they can take. No insult to the average joe, but he/she just doesn’t have time in their busy lives to read every journal and paper that addresses a particular question and eavesdrop on every esoteric debate.
We know this—the amount of CO2 contained in the earth and contained in Venus were essentially the same. The Earth is a paradise for us, whilst Venus ain’t. Venus’ CO2 went into its atmosphere. Earth’s was largely trapped in its crust. Nature is letting some of it out. Some of it pops out as a byproduct of Life. Some of it we’re pumping into the atmosphere.
We don’t know where there is heading. But one thing we don’t want to see is a global climate that fucks too much with the balance we sorely depend upon. Nobody says the Earth would become like Venus, of course… that’s not the point. What we kind of don’t want is a situation where the growing of crops becomes more problematic, where sea levels rise to inundate coastal regions—causing displacement of populations—and just on principle, I think we’d rather not see specialized and vulnerable species dying out.
So here’s where I’m not so much addressing this to YOU, Carpe, but to everyone. STEP BACK, folks, and think about it. In our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our immediate ancestors, certain elements of our global climate were clearly stable. Not much changed. Suddenly, in the last decade or so, we’ve seen freshwater lakes losing volume, (some lakes virtually disappearing) sea levels beginning to rise, ice vanishing at the poles, and weather evincing more chaotic patterns. Lay people hear scientists shrugging their shoulders at the cause of some of this—or stating the obvious, that some of it is natural—and they get carried away, thinking that this must be some totally natural phenomenon and that we have absolutely zilch to worry about.
Maybe there’s a chance we don’t—but given the evidence I highly doubt this. But even so, *why take the goddamned risk*?
It’s like standing in a forest next to a tree that’s clearly about to fall down. You know what? The tree might not fall *right* on your head, sending your ass to eternity. But it’s probably gonna fall in due course. Now me… I’m stepping out of its freakin’ way.
Why the hell wouldn’t you?
April 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
bucslim:
Another thing. If I recall, you said something way back about not trusting weather data from ages ago (yet you’ll trust the word of a trumped-up TV weatherman on issues of science… riiiiiiggghhht).
Well take it from an old sailor, my friend, and from someone who hails from a family of old sailors going back generations. The weather data of old was QUITE reliable and VERY accurate—it HAD to be, given that people were placing their lives and livelihoods at the utter MERCY of the weather. No, data-gathering was not sophisticated—but it was as damn well accurate as they could make it, and they *depended* on that accuracy—and endeavored at all times to increase said accuracy.
Remember, buc… your grandparents, great-grandparents and even your great great great great great great grandparents were just as smart as you. They may even have been smarter. No, they didn’t have the Weather Channel… but some of them watched the heavens far closer than you do, and some of them made a life’s work of watching the weather with keener eyes than you probably have.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
well, My other science teacher, Like one that teachers about the planets and all that stuff said something along the following:
“If global warming is real, Then here is what would happen. First it will get hotted, and hotter, which would start melting the ice caps. The Cold water from the ice caps will flow into the warm gulf stream, turning them cold. If this DOES happen, then The earth is getting flung into another Ice age”
April 21st, 2008 at 6:16 am
Funny how the ’scientists’ were bitching about how politicians weren’t going to do anything about the next ice age.
1975 Newsweek article:
http://www.resiliencetv.fr/uploads/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Randall – yawn.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
bucslim:
You just love this stupid Ice Age thing, don’t you? It’s like the bone a snippy little cocker spaniel can’t let go of. Christ.
Look, buc… let’s remember, for one, that doomsaying was a big thing in the late 60s and 70s. But so what? The number of scientists talking about an oncoming ice age at that time were FAR fewer in number than the ones who acknowledge the reality of global warming today. AND let’s remember something else, clown… YES, someday an ice age WILL come… we’ve known for a long time that we’re in an inter-glacial period. And in fact, there’s analyses and models which suggest that a period of global warming could *trigger* an ice age because of changes in ocean currents and so on. But in any case, the ice will come back some day—the question is WHEN. I don’t find solace in knowing the ice won’t come back for a few more thousand years, if in the meantime we’ve got to deal with global warming.
Another thing. An ice age is a lot more serious a problem than global warming, unless of course the latter was to go to real extremes, or it led TO an ice age, as I already pointed out. If I had to choose between the two calamities, I’d take warming any day, and not just because I like my sunny, hot days. Mile-thick glaciers covering vast swaths of the earth are a far great disaster for mankind, for obvious reasons. Food production would be far more imperiled, for instance. Demands for fuel (for heating) would skyrocket, etc. etc. Populations would be displaced. You get the idea.
What is your problem with this? Why is just taking precautions such an issue for you? Global warming is real either way, dude… regardless of whether WE are causing it or not.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
buc:
Addendum: My point about an Ice Age being more serious was that, in the doom and gloom 60s and 70s, it would have therefore been considered a more worthy bugaboo to take up than the idea of the earth warming up a few degrees. An ice age WOULD be a nasty calamity, if it were to happen–there’s no way around that, and geological evidence suggests that they can come on relatively quickly (in geologic terms) which means, sure, that we’d have at least a few generations to deal with it, maybe longer, maybe a lot longer—but there’s only so much you can do to prepare when the land you need to farm on is gradually becoming covered in thick sheets of ice, and you can’t live in vast swaths of the earth because it’s too freaking cold.
Anyway, let it freakin’ go, will you? If you don’t believe global warming is a real phenomenon, then you’re a fool. If you don’t want to believe mankind is contributing to it, well that’s up to you. But even if we’re not, we ought to do WHAT WE CAN to alleviate the problem, even if it’s all-natural, so that we as a species don’t suffer too much trouble.
For god’s sake, it’s like living next to a river that floods every year and ruins your crops and homes. If you can’t move away, wouldn’t you try to do something so that the river doesn’t flood like that all the time? Of course you would. So you’d build a dam and control the water flow. (Which the Egyptians finally got to doing in our modern age, with the Nile, and the Aswan dam). This is no different. If we can do ANYTHING to slow the warming or even stabilize it, we should. It’s in our own best interests.
You, you want to stay right next to the river and let it flood your house every year. Me… I’d rather do something about it.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Randall – all points noted. You’ve stated your position very well. I’m simply pointing out another scientifically based theory that wasn’t that long ago that was the exact opposite of what is allegedly happening now. Everyone is pointing to the notion that this has happened relatively suddenly. Well what happened to the data that was pointing to another ice age that the scientists said was coming 30 years ago? I’ve posted my opinion several times and backed it up with scientific papers and news articles, and yes, a respected voice from the weather community, none of which has made a dent in your thick head, because my science isn’t good enough for you. I respect what you’re saying pal, I really do, but I’m not swayed.
You keep saying I need to let it go, yet you reply twice to everything I post. The reason this thing is past 200 posts is because you and I keep going back and forth with the same arguments. I’ll let it go if you do.
I’m simply making these points to say what I’ve said all along, I think the data is debatable. On one hand they told us it was getting colder, now they’re telling us it’s getting warmer. Whoop de doo! The only difference now is they are trying to set policy, and I’m not buying it.
Finally, the number of scientists shouldn’t make a difference to you Randall, it should be who’s telling the truth and who is not. Just because a lot of people are saying it, doesn’t make it true. A lot of people voted for Bush, a lot of people voted for the war in Iraq, a lot of people like liver and onions.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Randall: Duly noted, sorry, I know this about global warming and not ozone depletion. Obviously, I feel the two are linked in some way, but yeah you’re right.
I finished high school chemistry about 3 months ago, so I’m not even going to try to pretend I know everything there is to know about the topic, but when the scientists come out with what the they think is going on, I’m smart enough to understand what they’re saying, and what the situation is at the moment, is that they don’t really have much of a clue what’s going on. It’s like you say though, why bother taking a risk with something that could potentially destroy humanity (ok that may be a tiny overstatement), when it’s much easier to just supress it and forget it ever existed. That’s pretty much where the CFC debate came from I guess, but it’s a somewhat of a catch-22, because if they hadn’t said anything about CFCs at all, we could all be dead soon, but bringing their problems with it to the foreground brings a whole heap of other issues for them to deal with. Understandably, fiery death is less preferable to dealing with the under-educated masses (of which I am one, don’t worry).
However, in regards to what you said, I hate to admit, but you’re actually completely right. I’ve never been a fan of Al Gore, and i pretty much detested the way that documentary was told, but it did bring up some interesting points, namely the fact that nothing has happened in millenia, and then things started fucking up. Again, like you said, why bother taking the risk. Natural causes are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at much the same rate they have been forever, so there has to be something else going on. I’m resisting the urge to merge this into the ‘Do Aliens Exist’ post.
And I can’t come up with anything the slightest bit as grandiose as what you did, so I might complete the hit-and-run tactic and get the hell out while I still can! Well stated Randall, you should be an orator of some sort… Bear in mind I did only just finish high school (although I do want to do medicine, so I’m guessing Australia’s health quality is about to take a dive).
April 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
During one of the usual Male intellectual periods of the day… It occured to me that even with all of the evidence pointing to Cattle flatulence as a potential cause/aid of Global warming…
Methane is a greenhouse gas and, in the atmosphere, contributes to global warming. Cows burp an abundant supply of it every day — about 280 liters per animal – Riverdeep.net
Has anyone analyzed the larger of our Animal friends? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4197313575439690035&q=elephant+fart&ei=3SYNSOmOA5GarwLK9f2tBA
Made even worse by only digesting 40% of what it eats.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Bucslim; Here you go. Although I’m sure my arguments wouldn’t carry as much weight as Randall’s these fellows’ should, in fact if you’ll excuse the blasphemy, they should carry more weight.
Nasa/Columbia Earth Institute Study
The new NASA and Columbia Earth Institute data find that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet, NASA managers say. “If global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise at the rate of the past decade, this research shows that there will be disastrous effects, including increasingly rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones,”
Lord Martin Rees (famous scientist guy for the uninformed masses – me too, I had to look him up)
“One set of risks stems from humanity’s collective impact. Our actions are transforming, even ravaging, the entire biosphere —perhaps irreversibly—through global warming and loss of biodiversity. Remedial action may come too late to prevent ‘runaway’ climatic or environmental devastation.”
Stephen Hawking (you would argue with Stephen Hawking?)
As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” Professor Hawking said. “As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.
“As citizens of the world, we have a duty to share that knowledge. We have a duty, as well, to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change.
The only truly accredited scientist I could find boo hooing the whole idea, was a fellow at MIT, Richard Lindzen. His arguments seem to fly in the face of evidence. Kind of like how the Plate Tectonics guy was received by some of his cronies – “More common than interest or approval, however, was a disbelief so strong that it often bordered on indignation. One of the strongest opponents was the British geophysicist Sir Harold Jeffreys, who spent years attempting to demonstrate that continental drift is impossible because the strength of the mantle should be far greater than any conceivable driving force. He refused to abandon this viewpoint in spite of the massive evidence in favour of plate tectonics.” (Ripped off shamelessly from and Ency. Brit. article by this guy – Tjeerd H. van Andel, Stanford University)
Randall probably could’ve speed dialed these guys (excepting the dead ones) and got a direct quote, it took me considerably longer.
Sorry I’m gonna side with Stephen et al.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This is a truly wonderful debate. If global warming is happening the next big question is how to stop it. If I am not mistaken we have to stop using oil, coal, stop cutting down the rain forest’s Today. Stop using plastic’s stop all industry like yesterday. What are we all willing to give up to stop this global warming.Are we willing to find a job within walking distance of our house which means a pay cut. Are we willing to give up our computers that use electricity so they will stop burning coal. What do you want to give up?
If global warming exists what are you doing to stop it. China is using more oil and coal every day than the U.S. Now what are we going to do. That is another topic all in itself. Yes and lets kill all the animals that produce methane gas oops that is humans also. Where do we stop? If we keep debating and don’t do anything about it then we are doomed already. Then all of you that believe in global warming have you planted a tree today.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Charlie; fyi I do my bit. An accident of birth – I live in Ontario, Canada – very little of our energy is produced by burning fossil fuels, we use mostly Hydro-Electric (not environmentally innocuous, but way better) and Nuclear energy.
I am not a rampant consumer, we do not buy new cars every couple of years, we do not buy new clothes unless we actually need them, we eat mostly at home, buy little processed anything. I recycle when appropriate, I compost, we eat smaller portions of meat than we used to, I don’t buy disposable anything, not even paper towels. (I did use disposable diapers though)and have lots of greenery on my property, huge Willow tree, maples, conifers, crab apple, and when one dies or is lost (due to the ridiculous amount of wind we have now) I replace it.
My husband has a high paying steady job in the auto industry (by the way, he builds cars with just about the highest MPG in the industry), so we can afford new cars etc, we just don’t. Its wasteful.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I bet there are millions just like you. Now all we have to do is get the rest of the 6.5 billion people to do the same thing.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Charlie; Long journeys begin by taking just a few small steps.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 am
“The only truly accredited scientist I could find boo hooing the whole idea, was a fellow at MIT, Richard Lindzen. His arguments seem to fly in the face of evidence.”
Mom : you do Lindzen – who is an eminent atmospheric scientist – a dis-service by saying he is “boo hooing the whole idea”. Far from it; he agrees that global mean temperatures have risen, but is questioning the assumptions in climate change models and questions the “consensus” mantra. Let me quote him :
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.
and :
there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition
http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~There_is_no__consensus__on_global_warming.html
Now, while Lindzen does have some unorthodox positions on various topics (he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, by the way), if you look a little harder you will find more than just him being skeptical about global warming (for various reasons).
You also mention the Nasa/Columbia Earth Institute Study. Well, you remember the somewhat discredited UN-IPCC studies discussed above? The NASA/Colombia Earth Institute organisations were/are a part of this process. Just for context
As I mentioned some distance above in this thread, it is the validity of the evidence underpinning analyses and conclusions that give rise to much of the global warming controversy (ostensibly, the predictive reliability of the climate models). Sometimes I wish that the great Richard Feynman were still alive; a true genius who would take this issue apart back to first principles, study the evidence, and then present an unbiased conclusion in such a way that any interested layperson could understand!
But I take solace in the fact that there are people like Lindzen out there who are trying to keep the science open and honest.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:28 am
Oh, and before I’m mistaken for a “global warming conspiracy theorist”…I’m not.
I am of the view that global climate trends certainly appear to be changing. What I am not so clear on is the extent of the man-made impact on this and whether or not we are capable of making a positive change by way of behavioural adjustment. Anecdotally, when I fly the Atlantic or Pacific (yes, I am aware of the irony) I look out of the plane’s window and am awed at just how big our world is, and it is difficult to conceptualise man being able to have an impact on such a scale; on the other hand, I see the extent of the crap pouring out of Chinese (and other) coal-fired power supplies on tv, and I think WTF ???
So, I think we (Joe Public) deserve to be given the opportunity to understand the true issues pertaining to the global warming debate – without it being spun to suit a political or libertarian or tree-hugging agenda.
In the meantime, my view is probably not too far away from what I interpret Randall’s to be; ie. ok, much of the issue remains subject to validation; but this is important, so in the meantime…why take chances?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
kiwiboi: thanks for posting that link – I found it extremely interesting indeed!
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 am
kiwiboi; Can you explain why NASA, who have been accused (rightfully or wrongfully?)of tempering their reports to appease the politicians (I can understand – what is their funding dependent on?)lend their name to said report? Would it not be in their best interests not to?
And Kiwi I’m not reactionary. I’m not out huggin a tree, I’m not a vegan pretending that my diet choices indicate some sort of moral superiority. There are too many people out there who; because our models are not perfect, because we don’t entirely understand the carbon cycle and how it relates to climate change, because we don’t have all the answers; choose to ignore the evidence we do have. Throwing out the baby with the bath water. Overwhelming evidence doesn’t necessarily mean ALL the evidence. I don’t understand entirely how the pressure plate on the clutch of my Mustang works, but I can still tell you it is broken.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
Mom – I don’t actually see how your response is particularly relevant to the points I was making in my posting.
I have no issue either way with what you choose to believe; but you were using examples to back up your argument which were flawed (Lindzen) or potentially questionable (Nasa).
There are too many people out there who…choose to ignore the evidence we do have.
Mom, as I have consistently stated; it is not the evidence that is the critical concern. It is the “scientific” extrapolation of the consequences.
I don’t understand entirely how the pressure plate on the clutch of my Mustang works, but I can still tell you it is broken.
Using your analogy : let’s say that you are having problems with your clutch. Your considered view is that it is the pressure plate. Now, most mechanics you consult agree that the plate is the likely culprit, and some are of the view that it is normal wear and tear and that worst case is that you’ll be driving along one day and lose some power in your vehicle – no biggie.
On the other hand, a vast majority of mechanics – not all of them clutch specialists – state (some without having necessarily examined the vehicle for themselves) that this is a critical fault and that the consequences will almost certainly result in you having a fatal accident, but that for the cost of $500,000 it might be able to be fixed and, moreover, doing nothing is not an option in their opinion. Bear in mind that you need the car for work, so you have no choice but to continue to drive it. Also, as soon as your insurance company finds out about this your premiums increase dramatically. ie. this is already costing you.
Now, you already agree that there is something wrong with your clutch system (though the severity remains questionable). But, given what is at stake, wouldn’t you want some better certainty as to the likely consequences of continuing to drive your car before you – in a state of shock – sign your name on that big cheque ? Gee…you might even take the time to study some clutch mechanics theory yourself ?
Of course, this is a silly example and there are some big underlying assumptions; not least being that there is only one vehicle in the world (your Mustang) available to you.
What would you do ?
And Mom, I care not if people hug trees, eat muesli, wear tie-dyed t-shirts, listen to The Association, or worship Al Gore. I’m fairly libertarian, and so long as people don’t try to unreasonably impose their lifestyle choices on me (whatever they are), we’ll get along just fine.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
“I care not if people hug trees, eat muesli, wear tie-dyed t-shirts, listen to The Association”
Ok, I lied. I do care. People listen to The Association should have their ears confiscated and their DNA outlawed
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Kiwiboi; I understand your point. I’m not certain you understood mine. Whichever scenario you adhere to, you still have to fix the clutch. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Continuing with the stupid clutch analogy – I take common-sense precautions to ameliorate the damage – I don’t add to an existing problem. ie; use the car only when necessary, curb my predilection for roaring starts, while I do more research, not after. Lets not wait to find out which side of the debate is right.
A little bit of imposition is not so bad. Taxes ear-marked for research. Enforcement of pollution control laws. Legislated brown-out hours. Luxury taxes on egregious gas-guzzlers. Economic aid to 3rd world countries to help them clean up their act. International laws that prevent Giant US firms from exporting their filth. I’m thinking gold mining the rainforest, Bhopal India etc. I’m not so selfish as to be unwilling to give up some luxury for the benefit of us all. (I don’t mean that you are selfish Kiwiboi – I’m speaking in general terms. You seem very nice)
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
“Lets not wait to find out which side of the debate is right.”
Mom – well, I totally agree with this. The risks of the worst-case outcome are too great to take chances with.
And, by the way…that Mustang ? Turns out it was the clutch cable
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Mom424: I know you debate this, but I still say you’re definitely up there with the smartest people on this site. Kiwiboi, you made some good points, but i have to say (and it’s not just because i’m aussie and you’re a kiwi) it makes much more sense to take precautions that could well be utterly useless than to do the research and continue the potentially life-destroying habit that may or may not be related to what you’re researching. Obviously some people are going to disobey these laws, even if they agree with the basic underlying premise, I think almost everyone is aware that smoking is likely to give you cancer if you do it too much, but the smokers continue smoking regardless, and i can tell you right now that if they came up with preliminary research saying that alcohol was extremely, extremely damaging, there aren’t a whole lot of people in the world who would give up drinking until more evidence came out, most people would keep it up until it was definite, and quite a few even after.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Kiwiboi, you made some good points, but i have to say (and it’s not just because i’m aussie and you’re a kiwi) it makes much more sense to take precautions that could well be utterly useless than to do the research and continue the potentially life-destroying habit that may or may not be related to what you’re researching.”
carpe_noctem : actually, if you read my posts (eg. #214) you will see that I agree that there is too much at stake to speculate :
ok, much of the issue remains subject to validation; but this is important, so in the meantime…why take chances?
My main problem is the disservice that the scientific community has done/is doing itself and the public, and the cynicism of politicians whose first instinct is to whack a tax on anything carbon-related.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
kiwiboi; I actually am beginning to think that it may be something with the clutch cable; the problem occasionally and mysteriously fixes itself for short periods. It has a self-adjusting mechanism; if you sharply stomp the clutch and release it slowly, a ratchet affair is supposed to tighten it. I think the problem may be there.
By the way it is a 5.O litre 1988 Fox body mustang, not a VW beetle(long linkages, drove one for 6 months with a bum clutch); if the clutch goes, I’m fuckin’ stranded.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mom – good luck with it. I love ’60’s Mustangs
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I am sensing some of the nauseating blind patriotism we Americans seem to exude. Like there is some heavenly edict that we can do whatever the hell we want and the rest of the world can just deal with it. Europeans recycle more, eat less meat, are way less superstitious, yet we tend to look down on them when actually they deserve our thanks and admiration. Americans do way more damage to this planet per capita than anybody else in the world yet we are confident our shit doesn’t stink. Now I will get some of those “If you don’t like it you can leave” comments from some of the millions of small-minded dolts among us. Pardon me while I vomit. This country could do so much better it is disgusting. Electing a non-moron for president would be a start. Go Obama. Save us from ourselves.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
MplsBrad: Right on Dude, Hug a rainbow.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Oh no – here comes the ice-age: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 am
“The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years.
“Global warming stopped in 1998,” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 am
If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.
jrater – Erm…haven’t I heard similar words somewhere else recently ?? Oh, the irony!
This is one brave scientist :
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.
I love his parting message to his scientific brethren :
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
It will be interesting to see if this stance gains any momentum.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 am
kiwiboi: I was particularly impressed with the parting message too
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 am
Read the entire article, not just sound bites. And his temperature data is misleading. Sure it was colder in some places, where it is not supposed to be cold. And warmer where it is not supposed to be warm. Overall according to NASA there was a temperature increase. Have a look at the link posted by Matt.
Here is the link to the quotes by Kiwi; an interesting read.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mom – who are you telling to “read the entire article” ? I would expect anybody who chooses to comment on an article would read it. I most certainly did.
Anyhow, you say his temperature data “misleading”; perhaps it is. Are you saying that you trust the Nasa/GISS data (which, I am sure from your own reading on the topic, you will be aware has been found to contain errors, and been “tweaked” on more than one occasion) ?
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
kiwiboi; It would be naive of me to believe that personal agenda’s don’t affect the outcome of most everything. I know you read the article, it concerns me that others scanning the comments wouldn’t. People will use any excuse to continue their crappy ass practices. Don’t impede on my right to drive my hummer, burn fossil fuels, and otherwise engage in the worship of consumerism. Cuz we’re all gonna freeze.
ps; I know 3 guys with hummers. 1 uses it for business, he runs safari’s on the Canadian shield, the other 2 guys have “little man” issues.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
by the way, I have no idea how to use html codes, none whatsoever. Is there a cheat sheet?
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Mom – fair enough. I was kinda worried you were thinking I might have an agenda myself; I don’t.
I will happily comment on or post evidence/white-noise from both sides of the global warming debate.
Actually, as a matter of principle, I do like to be an ornery contrarian
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Mom – start here :
http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/02/20/basic-in-post-html/
All you really need to know is how to do bold and italic
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Thank you Kiwiboi, I re-read my comment and it does appear a accusatory. It wasn’t my intention. I apologize.
I should have prefaced it with; Please folks etc…
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Mom – not a problem; forget about it
But thanks.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:19 am
First of all I am AMAZED that alot of people on here have done a little internet searching and all of a sudden they are telling us the FACTS!! Way to do research guys… That is what is wrong with this country, everyone gets on the computer and reads some stuff and just like that we have a genius(then they go around spreading this information). Why dont you guys publish a book or something? Its disgusting how much potential this country has and how much of this potential is wasted. I feel sorry for the people who read this and actually believe these people! Read books with credible information and dont let these idiots do the thinking for you. Then decide for yourself.
As for that Mom424.. I hope you are not actually a mother because I feel sorry for your kid(hopefully not kids). Way to think of yourself you selfish inconsiderate waste!
April 24th, 2008 at 6:04 am
WOW!! pardon me. Me selfish? Not on your life. I suggest you re-read my comments. I give up many things, not the least of which is the last 23 years of my life, for others. Fuck-off asshole. I would wager that I’ve read more books and learned journals in the last 5 years than you have in your whole miserable life. Or maybe not, you speak like you’re about 5 years old.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I don’t know who you think you are wow!!, I don’t recall you posting under that name before. But you’d be better off not coming in here and dropping the hammer on the Mom. She’s a friggen institution at this site, whether I agree with her or not.
You didn’t even state your own position on the topic which makes you a pussy. Take your infantile crap elsewhere, jackass.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Dude, whoever wow!! is… don’t ever ever mess with our Mom. Her opinion’s worth a million times whatever yours is. Oh wait, you didn’t give one…
You just have to love internet trolls who try to tell everyone else that they’re wrong without saying a word themselves.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am
wow!!–selfish inconsiderate waste? What’s with the sudden, unprovoked personal attacks here? And on Mom424? Are you nuts?? Seriously, back up, turn around, bye bye, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Seriously, I love trolls like this. They make me feel so much smarter than what I really am
April 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Thank you all very much for havin’ my back. I must share with you my mental picture of WOW.
White Male
5′ 5″ tall
baseball cap on backwards
too-tight jeans
either a)open running shoes with the tongues hangin out or
b)fake snake-skin cowboy boots
driving a hummer for compensation; the outfit just isn’t enough.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am
You see, someone like “wow!!” has nothing to say…. so he/she, wanting to seem intelligent (his or her prose style negates that desire, however) decides the only thing useful he/she can contribute is a criticism of… internet billboarding. Way to go, “wow!!” Very original.
The attack on Mom was just… bizarre, however. I detect, perhaps, some measure of mental instability.
At any rate, I strongly suggest that the moron not do it again.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
wow!! : head or gut ???
Heh, I always wanted to use that great Bruce Willis line
April 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
kiwiboi; gut, There is a good chance you would knock him out with the first punch if you hit him in the head. I want the pain and humiliation to be long-lasting.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Here I am agreeing with Randall again. What’s happening too me!!!!
I like the Idea of stress fractures, I’m pretty partial to maiming. Slow steady hyper-flexing, then severing the tendons behind the knee. “Wow!! Look at the gimp.”
April 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Mom424: I have some fairly ingenius, and…evil might not be the right word…f-d up ideas for slow, tortuous punishment if the situation calls for it.
Just a small taste: Cut off his eyelids, so he can’t close his eyes, and burn his retinas with a lit cigar.
It gets worse from there.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Slick, those generally aren’t things you publish in public… Sooner or later some weird serial killings is going to get traced back to you.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Crimanon:
“Smales? See, what you wanna do with Smales is, you cut the hamstring at the back of the leg… then when he goes for the swing, he, ya know, can’t do the follow through..”
….from memory, I’m afraid… couldn’t find the actual quote online anywhere. Must watch Caddyshack again now.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Randall – He’ll quit the game.
That would work Carl, and I’m going to call you if I need that.
You ever wanna rap or anything, ya know, get weird, bud’s for life?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
SlickWilly, Bucslim, Crimanon etc.
Can’t burn the retina’s first. Then the SOB can’t see me/we/us gloat over his twisting wretched frame. So – gut shot, submission hold, ham-string, emasculation (I added that part just for fun), and eyelid/retina burning as the denouement.]
Geez I’m feeling so much better now.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Cover in honey and toss on the red ant pile. . .
Strip naked and swing through the nettle patch. . .
Pair of pliers and a blowtorch – Just like Marcellus Wallace. . .
Slice, apply generous amounts of salt, repeat. . .
Tie in chair and let Bud White have a go at him until we get full compliance. . .
Have him co-star in a Takashi Miike movie without the movie props. . .
Lots of things come to mind Ma.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“To the Pain” or
Death by porcupine;
2 dozen porcupines (quill tips snipped off)
1 10sq. ft. pool (empty)
1 Wow!!
Angry up the Porcupines
Drop into pool
Add 1 Wow!!
Once the quills have entered the flesh of said Wow!!, the spines will act as straws. With increased blood pressure and heart rate, you should see results immediately. Attempting to remove quills without medical attention will break them causing an enhanced flow of bodily fluids. Estimated expiration, 2 hours to 2 days, depending on Excess tissues.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“You will therefore be taken to the Dune Sea, and cast into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac. In his belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years. ”
We’re a bunch of vindictive mofo’s when an outsider attacks one of our own.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
LV 4 Life!!!! Represent!
April 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
This is wonderful.
Where else can you get references to Caddyshack, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, J-Horror, Exsanguination by Porcupine, and Star Wars, while handily disposing of an ugly troll?
I am so over the joke list fiasco. I love you guys. Thanks again.
ps; please excuse the excessive female mushy moment. I try not to let it happen too often.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Don’t sweat it, Mom. We look out for our own.
On a side note, the most messed up punishment I could think of was the punishment I came up with for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11:
Strip him naked, stake him to the ground on his stomach. Find a man with a very large penis (preferably recently released from prison – he *won’t* be gentle) and have him practice…um…”yahm-yo” on the victim for upwards of 6 hours or until his rectum is completely annihilated. Then, pour honey into his sagging cave of an asshole, and add several thousand angry fire ants (or bullet ants, if you’re feeling particularly sadistic) and finish procedure by sewing his flapping, torn sphincter shut.
That’ll be the last time anyone gives you trouble. And if someone else tries it, just give them the psycho-peepers and gently remind them of what happens when people mess with you.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Seriously, though…whatever happened to respecting the locals?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m coming to this discussion a little late, and I’m going to post an idea that may not make me very popular. All I ask is that you think about it before screaming at me:
I believe the data, and the rhetoric, about global warming.
I believe that we are altering the environment at an alarming rate.
In the short run, humans are going to have a tougher time of it. Humans in the modern world that is. They will have a chance to understand what living in the third world is all about and it’s likely that a lot of us could die sooner than necessary.
But in the long run – it doesn’t matter because we aren’t going to kill the planet. And we’ll find ways as a species to survive.
We aren’t going to destroy it’s ecosystem.
We may be around to see that ecosystem change drastically. It will likely be an ecosystem that is completely different from what we are looking at now. It may be an ecosystem that we find aesthetically unpleasant.
But a future person won’t. They’ll see its beauty because it is the beauty of their time. The future wildlife will exist in abundance. Maybe less species than now, maybe more, and likely very different.
The world and it’s ecosystem will continue. They will likely be very different from the current world and ecosystem, but it will be no greater a change than any major change the earth has seen in the past. Remember – the current ecosystem, climate and state of the world is unlike any that has come before.
The question is – why do we feel this is the ideal one to preserve?
I advocate recycling, and I advocate energy saving, but this is merely for selfish reasons. I’d like to see the world remain “pretty” while I’m here. Rationally though, it doesn’t matter because pretty is just subjective, and eventually we all adapt our criteria for what we perceive as pretty.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I’m doing my part by not procreating.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:14 am
A lot of people that believe it’s real were swayed by that famous picture of the Polar Bear on the chunk of ice that had been detached from it’s mainland…. they forgot to mention that polar bears can swim over 50 miles. I guess that would kind of dampen the sad message they were trying to portray to hook you into their lie.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I just love stirring the pot. Food for thought. When do theories become realities? Do the same people that believe in global warming still believe in evolution and we will evolve into a entirely different species to deal with the heat/warming? Or don’t these people think we will evolve fast enough for the changes. I for one believe that man with his technological advances will learn how to deal with the situation and cope with it. We may not have the same life style as we live/have today, but man will survive, And if he doesn’t to the evolutionists I say that is what we evolved from and back into nothing To the creationists we went back to dust.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
okay so im actually trying to find some real info on global warming for a paper and so far eveything on this is useless.
people who spend all their time on blogs like this must have no lives too..
..and the icebergs where polar bears are stranded are floating more than 50 miles out to sea, genius..if you did some research you’d all see that global warming can be proven, its happening..so stop arguing about it and do somthing to help it
May 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
It appears that the latest now is that global warming is on hold until 2015, and will then start up again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
So after 10 years of cooling (see article above) and now another 7 years of non-change – we are still to believe that Global Warming is real and will “resume” in 7 years? It sounds to me like some people trying to find ways to keep their jobs.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I’m at a loss. I’ve never read so many ignorant statements in my life. No-of course humans aren’t causing global warming, good lord that’s crazy talk. Who cares if we’re burning millions and millions of years worth of carbon and releasing it into the air? Wait…isn’t that a greenhouse gas? I have a suggestion, stop reading State of Fear (MC is not a scientist) and watching Fox News and hit the books, become a real authority. The vast majority of the evidence point to humans here folks, I know you don’t think you do anything wrong, and god forbid somebody infringe on your lifestyle, but seriously, stop being such selfish, angry, punks. And of course we don’t want people telling us how to live our lives, unless it infringes on the health of others, then its not your right anymore. So disappointed with you people.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Your opinions have been noted Chris.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I have this feeling that the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” can turn into a reality.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Nivek: So “The Core” would be three years after that?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I seems that global warming turn into one BIG issue lately. Well, i appreciate the people hardwork to reduce the effects of the global warming, but i think about one thing, we’ll never able to stop global warming. Even if i take three step outside my room right now i can see one of the global warming activities, ” my smoking friends “….
May 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
@267
I stopped reading at “Fox News”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I’m posting in tnree points here before even reading the 272 above.
My basic view has already been laid out in Top 10 Conspiracy Theories, q.v..
1) For your own sake. For Pity’s Sake. For the sake of any kids you have, are thinking of having, or might have. For the sake of anything you have done or care about that you want to continue on this planet, and if you don’t read anything else on the subject, read ‘The Revenge of Gaia’ by James Lovelock, and read it soon. Lovelock is a measured scientist, not an emotional environmentalist. If that doesn’t scare shit out of you, nothing will.
2) There’s something called the Catastrophe Theory. If you bend a stick carefully and slowly, it will keep on bending and you will see little or no signs of the underlying stresses. It looks O.K. Then it reaches a critical point of no return, snaps in your hand, and can’t ever be returned to what it was. Think about that.
3) My best analogy for what is happening is a small aquarium or still pond. They’re just like our 3rd rock in miniature – closed systems.
When the system is healthy, the water is crystal clear, it is teeming with life of all sorts that you can’t see and can see, and they are all in balance and self-regulating.
Upset that balance a bit with too much food or too many fish. It still looks pretty good, but a few of the most sensitive micro-organisms have started to die. These are known as markers. They act as a warning sign. Keep on adding pollution (more food than can be eaten) or too many bigger organisms and the water will start to cloud, algae will form and probably a few of the bigger organisms may start to struggle, develop diseases, or even die out. But the big, tough stuff will thrive, and even benefit. But as the big tough stuff thrives and benefits, it accelerates the rate of pollution and over-extraction of oxygen. The water goes so murky, you can’t see what’s going on. You know things are alive because of swirls and movement. You don’t like the increasing stink though. Then one day you go along and everything is belly-up. The whole system has reached a point (catastrophe) where it can no longer support life.
Right now, we (the planet) are at about the equivalent stage when some micro-organisms and a few of the more sensitive visible life-forms are beginning to die. But we are certainly already way beyond the initial marker stage. Do you want to wait until it goes much further? It’s going there fast.
If you think I’m scaremongering, then just live on with your mind closed for as long as Gaia lets you. Fair enough, that’s the way the Romans lived the last days of their empire.
If you care, vote for the right people, keep yourself, informed and do everything reasonable to keep yourself in harmony with the planet.
Be warned. There are a lot of rich. powerful vested political and economic interests who don’t want you to believe a word of what I’ve just written
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
9. Jamie.
We’re living on a population knife edge. There is scarcely any reserve. Some corn (maize) is taken out for biofuel, the world price ups and poor people are struggling to buy their basics. That is already happening.
And we have been extremely lucky with a stable world economy for a good long while now. But fuel prices are already causing an edgy world situation. Look at the lorry protests. All food and consumer goods movement depends on fuel costs. Hence inflation and employment. The thought of any real world economic hitch is frightening.
You need a huge amount of slack to allow for ‘bad times’ (and we can’t just go on pretending they will never happen9, but we are actually moving in the other direction, with reserves of water and food stocks actually diminishing.
I’m sorry, but that’s real.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Population facts, statistics and lies.
One of the statistical planks of those who oppose the idea that humans are affecting the planet is the calculation that the present world population can be fitted into the state of Texas. Therefore there is all the rest of the world for more population expansion and also for Nature.
The other day I calculated that exactly 78.456189 Indian elephants could be fitted (very snugly) into our house.
Anyone see a slight flaw in the Texas argument?
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I’ve just started reading and notice people are confused because forecasts made, say in the 70s, that the effects of global warming would be disastrous by 2000 have not come about. Or other failed predictions such as temperatures or precipitations tending to go in the opposite direction.
Point one. The planet has never had 16 billion humans and their industrial civilizations on it before. We have no model for prediction. I suspect early in this field scientists tended to be TOO precise with figures, dates and effects, because they feared they wouldn’t be taken seriously otherwise. By God, they were right. They weren’t taken seriously anyway.
Point two. If we take anywhere with a volatile climate, we can’t even forecast the weather accurately a few days ahead. And we expect to forecast global warming??? I say it again. We haven’t been here before. Remember, we needed to drop the A-bomb to discover what it’s effects would be on people.
Let me give you a simple parallel. You have a kid and let him or her cross a road teeming with traffic to go to school every day. Your neighbour says, “That kid will be dead by Friday.” So by good fortune it’s still alive on Saturday. That means your neighbour is an interfering f***ing idiot who doesn’t know shit? That you are quite right? That the road is safe as houses? And your kid will cross and live for ever?
So assume we don’t know about global warming one way or the other. Then the alternatives are (1) that the planet can take whatever we throw at it. Or (2) it’s going to chuck up and chuck us out. If we don’t know which alternative, what’s the intelligent reaction? To ignore the situation and carry on with business as usual, keeping our fingers crossed the answer will be (1). Or to at least accept that it could be (2) and act accordingly?
And another thing. I’m a trained biologist and I cannot tell you what might happen, or when or how. I can only say that so many of the changes, both big and small, I see lead me to fear the worst. You don’t walk into an operating theatre and tell a trained surgeon he doesn’t know shit about medicine or the human body, do you? So to any arrogant idiots who say “There’s no global warming problem, I know”: just belt up and listen to people who have studied this professionally, and who also want a world left for themselves and their children.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Spanner in the works: okay – I listen to the scientists – on both sides (which is not true of many climate change evangelists). So what is the layman to make of it when over 1,000 highly regarded scientists and climate experts sign and release the Manhattan Declaration which says:
From the InternationalClimate Science Coalition.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Thanks for the considered response jfr.
First up, have you read Lovelock? He does address these matters. You may or may not agree with parts or all of his ideas. I can criticise some of his minor points on natural history, for example, not that they make any difference to his overview. It’s short-sighted nitpicking, like an aviation expert complaining of Tiger Moths being used in an otherwise great WW1 air combat film.
Lovelock is highly conscious of the need to maintain civilisation and its momentum. He’s not one of these, “we must all leave towns and grow our own veggies on our own little plots” idiots, like some colleagues of ours. His radical (for an ecologist) interim solution is nuclear power. He has completely converted me from rabid anti-nuclear. Many of his former followers have rejected him for it. Read him, it’s really worth it.
He says the dangers of nuc. have been grossly and emotionally overplayed, and that it will buy us time to develop more radical and efficient future planet-friendly technologies, such as hydrogen cells and renewable solar electricity exchange between vehicles, cars and grids. Also, hopefully eventually, nuclear fusion. But we don’t have time to develop and slowly replace present polluting systems with these alternatives. Of course he has loads more topics and solutions, not least population.
His thesis is exactly as I described for my aquarium metaphor: that the planet is a totally intergral super-ecosystem (including inorganic elements such as climate) made up of local ecosystems made up of individual organisms, and that we humans are also an integral part of that system and cannot free ourselves from it or escape the consequences of our actions on it.
He doesn’t give us much time to act. I don’t think wringing our hands is going to help. Nor will be being trapped helplessly between two groups of equally powerful scientists offering diametrically opposed advice. Remember the story of the donkey that starved to death because it couldn’t choose which bale of hay to eat?
At my more pessimistic, I tend to share with an increasing number of natural science friends the helpless view that humanity (and the rest of life) is fatally trapped in a Catch-22, perhaps as illustrated by your 1000 scientist quote. On the other hand, do we just give up without trying? I get angry and passionate about this and just a very, very few other topics. That despite my being by inclination a lazy sybarite much preferring to have a laugh, to contribute what I do for a living, and to generally piss about in the background. But I feel I do know something about this, and it would be irresponsible simply to figuratively shrug my shoulders. We keep getting these “send this off to 10 others, and het them to send to 10 others” thingies to our e-mail. If I could only propagate similar exponential concern for global warming (or overheating, as I prefer to call it) by that system, I’d feel I had done something worth living for.
Jamie, but if you are keeping yourself as informed and open-minded as you can, at least you know what is going on and can make responsible decisions at any time. That is important enough itself.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Jfr,
I have more thoughts on the dubject that might be helpful for laymen. At the same time I’m very conscious I could just keep on and swamp this site, even though I’m trying not to. I must rely on you. If you think my contributions are getting out of hand (and anywhere else as well) just say so. You’d be surprised how pachyderm my skin is. Must work now, so will try to get back later.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Jamie Frater,
It just occurred to me out of the blue that you might be interested, nay PROUD, to learn something that I reckon belongs more here than anywhere else in Listverse. Probably only here.
One of the very top evolutionary biologists (and occasional ecologists) in South America is the resident New Zealander, Dra Mary Kalin (Arroyo). She has a tremendous international reputation. Mary is a workaholic and one tough cookie who scrambles about carelessly and tirelessly at around 5000 m, although deep into her 50s (if not early 60s now).
One of her contemporaries and fellow students, who remained in New Zealand was the botanical ecologist, Dr David Given. I have to say ‘was’ as he unfortunately died rather young a year or so back: a great loss. (Anyone who dies younger than I am now died young, naturally!) David, also a deeply religious guy (unlike many of we sceptical natural history types), fought all his life to protect New Zealand’s native flora, as well as taking part on the international scientific scene. He was a great and greatly respected contributer to our living world.
Both the above subscribe(d) to the notion that humanity is fouling its own nest, and fought (she is still fighting) tirelessly to hold the natural fort.
Of course in this wondrous electronic age, one can find out more about them on the net.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
check.
… unlike many of US sceptical …
July 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Sorry I’m a bit of time coming back, jfr. We got invited to a July 4 thrash yesterday by Amercan friends and their Latin Partners and buddies. But the spew follows in the next posting:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Thought for the day.
Dogs lay about ca 2.5 tons of shit in Central Park, NY.
(Done in a Michael Caine accent and followed by, “Not a lot of people know that.”)
First heard or read way, way back, when I could still sprint hard a long way to catch a bus. So 2.5 tons over what period? Well, I’m fairly certain it was 24 hours, but it might have been a week. But even a week would be pretty awesome. It got me wondering what might be our individual and collective human ‘footprints’. I never worked on it, but others recently did (see below).
“So what is the layman to make of it …”
I know you asked this in a specific context, jfr, and certainly not about dog shit, but it also set me thinking.
The layman cannot challenge recondite academic or scientific data. If someone shows you a complex modern aircraft sitting on the runway and tells you it will fly, you’ve no way of knowing by looking at the blueprint, the machine or its engine. You only know when it’s up and running. Everything is so specialised nowadays. But when scientists or their ‘mouths’ want or need to convince the public, they try to reduce explanations and arguments to the level a well-educated person in the street can grasp (Bill Bryson makes a great job of this). That’s the chance, because it should offer a point of reference to judge them by. The layman can then use common knowledge and intelligence to test what’s being ’sold’.
Let me use my example in 275 above about all the people on the planet being able to fit into the state of Texas. That was in a serious popular science work, it quoted scientists and scientific facts and also attacked highly regarded fellow-scientists who were touting evidence for global warming, climate change and planetary deterioration. It wanted to convince you and me that global warning was at best a misguided interpretation of facts, at worst a misanthropic conspiracy of vested interests. Its contributors, or at least promoters, included scientific advisors to the Vatican.
I mocked it above by suggesting how many elephants you might fit into our house (students in a mini car or telephone box would have done equally). I was tempted to use the number of ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, but that would have been a mistake. These people are not telling you because they themselves don’t know or don’t want to know. They are deliberately distorting information to try to make you believe what they want you to believe.
Now let’s examine the real world of each of us, locked shoulder to shoulder in Texas (hope I’m next to Julia Roberts, or similar, by the way). It’s been encapsulated in the (TV) work I referred to above, which I think is perhaps now quite famous. We’ve certainly seen it here in South America. A producer set out to discover the lifetime ‘footprint’ of an average middle class Brit, from birth to death. Total number of nappies. Total number of apples eaten, of cows eaten, of eggs eaten. Total gallonage of beer drunk. Etc., etc. And of course all the waste. They sat someone on a bog in a yard and then poured over him what looked like (but wasn’t, of course) his lifetime’s shit and pee. Then followed it with ticker-tapes of all his bog-paper. They even did sanitary towels and condoms. It was splendidly eye-catching and graphic. One I particularly recall: they got Trafalgar Square emptied and re-filled it right up, as well as surrounding roads, with all the cups of tea the average Brit drinks in a lifetime! Of course it could not cover our entire footprints, particularly where they are shared footprints: the areas of land that each of us takes up with our activities, our food production and our waste: our percentage of airline, road and public transport useage: nothing on the industry that manufactures for us, or the armed forces and their weaponry that defend us and our interests: you could keep on adding more.
Well, you may be thinking, that certainly puts Texas into a world context, but of course it all takes place over an entire lifetime, hopefully at least 70 years. We live day-to-day, and our activities are easily absorbed into the fabric of the planet over time.
That’s where my 2.5 tons of dogshit comes in. Suppose, instead of considering that overview as a human life-span of about 25,000 days, you take it as 25,000 people over one day. A bit different, huh? 25,000 isn’t a particularly large community.
Let’s call that a unit: 25,000 people anywhere over 24 hours = 1 HL (human lifetime). So 100,000 = 4 HL; a million of the population 40 HL. As I understand it, we are around 5 billion (= million millions) right now. I’m lousy at maths, so hope I’ve got it right at the equivalent of 200 million HL per day. That was about the total number of people running about all over the world in 500-600 AD. And it’s rocketing up as I write. This is the sort of data that Al Gore quite properly refers to as an inconvenient truth. It’s not warm and comforting, like all of us snuggled together in Texas, it’s fucking scary. For me, anyway. O.K. I’m not going to get trapped in my Indian elephant snare. An average world citizen lives a lot less longer than a U.K. middle class person, and also consumes and wastes a great deal less, so these stats are no more than unprocessed food for thought.
But you can at least see how it is perfectly possible for a layman to challenge that Texas statistic by common logic, using commonly available facts. I don’t have any more expertise in demographics than the rest. So try to do that wherever you can. And when you find similar really crass, brain-insulting crap, reject everything else between the same covers, because the author is either stupid or dangerous. You wouldn’t believe anything from a mathematician who told you 5 x 5 = 24, would you? Or try any recipe of a cook who advised you an egg would remain soft after being boiled at sea level for eight minutes? Maybe you’ll be throwing out some baby with bathwater, but if the bathwater is that stinking anyway, just do it. And I mean equally for those supporting the concept of human-induced global warming as against it. Bad arguments damage good causes. Finally work hard not to believe something simply because you want to.
I read an account of a scientific butterfly investigator in the Dominican Republic. In the morning he would set out from his hotel through the local inhabited lowlands and up into the natural uninhabited woodland where his butterflies conducted their daily local migration flights. He was struck by the extremely high balance of babies, children and young people by the wayside (about 5-8 per family, he reckoned), and how attractive and healthy this looked compared with his notably more ageing and doddery community back home in the States. Then, as he reached the lovely, untouched butterfly woodland above, a shocking lateral thought struck him, and he began mentally felling and stripping the landscape to allow for the fuel and food this continuing population increase would demand. He wondered how long it would be before Dominica matched it’s ‘Siamese Twin’, Haiti, which has about five times less undegraded landscape, and comes close to being a man-made tropical island desert.
But if the rate of population growth slowed, let alone stopped or reversed, another huge problem would arise. Asked about this, a French demographer once said that to keep France or any other modern state in a healthy economic and overall condition needed a continuing and perpetual population growth-rate that did not fall below about 2.4%. The reason relates to what a flower nursery friend once observed. He said he’d noticed nursery businesses either expand or go downhill, it didn’t seem possible to maintain them in a perfect economic balance. He couldn’t say why. It’s easier in the case of nations: ageing populations. Obsolete old buggers like me lose their capacity to contribute vitally to the economy, and have to be supported in various ways by the younger and fitter, which I imagine includes most of you lot. They drain the economy very significantly. So as population growth slows (not to mention ever-increasing longevity via medical advances), the ratio of old to young in society increases dramatically. I’m plugged into the local health service where I live, and have to undergo an old farts’ psychological test. I get told three numbers, which I have to remember and regurgitate later, when asked. The same with a trio of words, which I have to return in reverse order, and so on. I get asked whether I can read, and if so what. When Anita pulls Stephen Hawking’s ‘A Short History of Time’ out of her handbag, the sweet young psychologist thing falls off her twig. She tells me most locals of my age can’t do the number and word tests and are simply sitting on a couch watching the box and Waiting for Godot. I can shin up fairly pokey mountains in modest succession for weeks on end. I write scientific papers. But I need regular medicine for gout and hypertension, I’ve had hernia and cataract ops since 2000, and need regular check ups. I also receive an (admittedly pathetic) state pension. In other words, although an unusual emeritus contributor to society still, even I am a drain I wasn’t 20 years ago. Some European countries, Italy, for example, are so enmeshed in this problem that they are having to bring in workers from the third world, which is racking up potential racial tension.
Don’t ask me what might be a (humane) solution. I haven’t the foggiest. Lovelock says that if we don’t find a solution, nature will find one for us, and we won’t like it. There’s always euthanasia, but you’ll appreciate by now that I’m neither going to vote or volunteer for it, and I’ll “fight it on the beaches, etc., etc.” if any politican or dictator tries to impose it!
Whatever else, it needs as many as possible of us to remain aware of these planetary problems, to keep thinking about them with open and flexible minds, and to support those who are trying to move us as best as can be in (hopefully) progressive directions.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Hi Boss,
Don’t suppose you’ve had time to get around here again yet. With 2.5 m list-visitors a-tapping and a-yapping at your heels, perhaps you never will!
However I forgot something short and sweet that I ought to add. It’s most important.
It’s the converse of rejecting dodgy info, as already explained above.
As important as eliminating the information sharks is to try to build up a file of the reliable. Those whose information and attitudes you’ve learned by personal or indirect reliable experience you can implicity trust. The criterion should be that anything you read of theirs will be presented in the utmost good faith, and with the maximum of objectivity that any of us can bring to bear. Preferably they should be without political or economic attachments and pressures (i.e., they may influence and recruit people from those spheres, but must not be influenced by them). I cite Ed (E.O.) Wilson, David Attenborough and James Lovelock as three of mine who are most likely to be known. As regards indirect trust, one can also usually build from such fundamental names. In other words if someone you trust (A) trusts someone else (B), then you too can probably trust (B), and so on along the line. It doesn’t necessarily work in reverse, because agenda cynics sometimes distort what are otherwise basically perfectly reliable sources.
This aspect of finding whom you can trust is critical in the complex information ocean in which we are adrift. Total laymen aside, even an extreme specialist such as myself has scant time to read the almost limitless literature on subjects such as climate change and the global impact of human activity. I want to do a hundred and one other things in my life quite apart from my actual work, both serious and frivolous, and many of them miles away from this core subject. It looks like Listverse has just joined them! So if, like me, you can only dabble, it’s terribly important that what you do read is key and telling literature.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I think that we don’t have enough evidence to decide whether it is a real threat, but we can’t afford to take any chances. We have to prepare for the worst. If we decide that it isn’t real, and we don’t prepare for it, it might turn out that it is real. If that happens we’re screwed. We have to take precautions so that we will be prepared either way.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Got it in one, Mike (285).
Although I think if you were to read Lovelock you might be inclined to suspect that we do have enough evidence.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I haven’t read the Lovelock, but he’s just jumped to the top of my ” must purchase and read *now*”‘ book list…the book list that wouldn’t die, but I’ve read deeply in the natural sciences, and am a firm believer in global warming. My village believes, as well, and *ACTS* accordingly.
Thank you, Spanner, for all the information, and the reading tip.
The more information one has, the more power one has. I want to be able to do everything possible, everything within my power, to leave a planet worth living on…a planet as beautiful and awe-inspiring to my most fabulous granddaughter
July 17th, 2008 at 8:22 am
segue,
Just saw that you had chipped in here. Thanks for the reaction. It reminds me. I haven’t even got back to reading most of the postings above yet. That makes me a true fraud and hypocrite, since I take others to task for posting without reading!
July 17th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I haven’t read through all the comments, too many of them. But has anyone mentioned anything about naturally occuring events being the cause? I’m talking about things such as the polarization of the planet and the spinning of the earth’s core. What we’re doing isn’t helping but when people say it’s us, and only us that are causing it are just ignorant. This stuff happens. Go read your textbooks and see that there was a little ice age that lasted a couple hundred years and really didn’t end till the mid 1800’s.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I’ve scanned the comments, stopping to read the posts of the people whose opinions I value…not a really honest way to operate, but all I can manage with a List this old at the moment. I will take more time later.
I remember a number of years ago there was a hue and cry that we were headed for “global cooling”, and gave all sorts of reasons why. Of course, nothing like that came to pass because they were working, as I remember it turned out, with faulty data.
I have it in the back of my mind that that fiasco may be part of the reason so many people just don’t buy global warming…an awkward sentence, but I hope you catch my meaning.
Of course the earth goes through natural cycles, Ice ages, Tropical Ages, but this is the first time in geologic history that mankind has had a hand in hurrying one of these Ages along. Not just hurrying it, either, but compounding it. If we don’t listen to the experts, and take measures *NOW*, it’s going to be too late.
We’re a greedy bunch, we humans. It’s time to grow up, pay the piper, and dance to his tune if we want a livable planet for ourselves, our children, and all the other inhabitants upon whom we rely.
It used to be that we worried about killing off the human race with nuclear destruction.
I don’t think it’s going to be that big and that noisy. But that’s another discussion for another List.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Any argument ive heard to support the fact that overpopulation will cause a problem is based on the assumption that the population will either continue to grow exponentially or start to slow down while still increasing. The fact is that population growth is logarithmic and a population will grow exponentially until a certain point at which the growth levels off and ends up growing so slowly that any increase is negligible. Overpopulation, in my opinion, is no threat to the world whatsoever. If anything, i would expect a population increase to 9 billion to be a good thing and thats where the world population is going to level off.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Randall,
My stance is behind almost every aspect that points to the existence of global warming (I prefer environmental disruption), its causes and likely effects. I’m not going to make the blind assumption that you stand diametrically opposed to that simply because one thread of an argument places you against me. However, I will say that those I despise and fear (for their influence) have adopted Ehrich as one of their emblematic prime pop-up targets. They seem to be working to the principle that if they can knock down Ehrlich, all we other ducks and all our other arguments will go down with him.
I invite you consider the following:
1) As one who abhors conspiracy theories, the number, such as Iron Mountain, that have been cooked up to discredit adherents of global warming.
2) The following two points are key planks in the attacks by the anti-global warming lobby against their opponents. (a) That people who care about the rest of organic life on this planet are misanthropic and hate their fellow humans. (b) That 15.16 billion humans currently living on the planet can be fitted into the state of Texas, so the world is absolutely overflowing with space both for the natural world and unlimited future population growth (fed, of course, by the marvels of genetically monified crops). Randall, if, as a trained university person in both the sciences and the arts, you cannot both immediately see the glaring, gaping scientific and intellectual chasms in those arguments, and also realise that whoever wrote them must have been aware too, then …
Show me any equivalent to those in the work of Ehrlich, please. They are clearly designed to convince the gullible masses, with the first one cynically deploying their religious sensibilities, as do so many of these arguments.
3) I suspect, from your tone, that you either regard Ehrlich as a cynical exploiter or an incompetent, if not both. It sounds to me as though you incline to the former. The comparison itself you made was unworthy. Almost as if saying Churchill trying to warn us of Hitler’s danger had no value beside Reg Mitchell designing the Spitfire which fought it off. Well, never mind. My evaluation of Ehrlich, which I am explaining, not trying to change your opinion, is that he was as shit-scared as I now am by what he honestly perceived. Probably in an effort to make people take notice, he made the big error of putting dates on the unpredictable. If you look out of a window and see a little child playing in a dangerous road, and someone says, “That child will be dead tomorrow”, and the child isn’t, the predicter is a fool and the road is quite safe, eh? Maybe there were road works and no traffic that day, thus making the exact prediction even more unlikely. Ehrlich and other predictors unintentionally created the even greater ‘cry wolf’ danger. It didn’t happen. It won’t happen. It is happening. Oh, run away and pull the other leg.
I realise we may share other related views, and that yours on Ehrlich differs from mine. But this is my viewpoint.
I haven’t had to to check properly. I’ll read it again when I get back.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Randall,
First error, crazy world pop. figure. Mixed humans with mice I guess. Not the first time I’ve done it either. Sorry I’m ga ga anyway, just had a run in with a neighbour. And we’re trying to make an appointment. Won’t tend make Dave (291) very impressed with my credential record if come back at him either! I’ve gotta go ….
July 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Spanner, just a thought on global warming.
By now, the evidence is overwhelmingly confirming global warming, yet some people refuse to be convinced.
I know some of these people…in fact, I’m related to some, and the same characteristic runs through all of them, no matter how intelligent they are natively.
They are intellectually lazy.
If you deny a problem exists, that absolves you from having to take any action to stop the problem from worsening.
If you deny a problem exists, you can go about your life as if nothing is amiss.
Perhaps, too, it’s a way of holding onto childhood. Global warming is the new boogy-man to these people, and we all know that the boogy-man doesn’t exist. Hence, neither does global warming.
Either way, it’s denial of responsibility.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
segue,
How right you are. I think I could perhaps throw a few more ingredients into the mix for taste, but you have the basic brew there.
What a perfect title Al Gore thought up, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Could there have been a better one?
There is another factor I have noticed. Normally intelligent and probing people who deny biosphere degradation (another way of putting it, which includes everything shitty we are doing), pack their brains away in a box when it comes to this issue. They accept flabby arguments that would never pass muster for them by in other subjects. For example, as I ask above, how could any person with an iota of intelligence state unequivocally that earlier environmentalists were definitely ‘wrong’ because their predictions did not occur. What about the so-obvious alternative that they might merely have got their prediction dates wrong? To me that is elementary logic an intelligent upper schoolchild could be capable of. Instead they prefer to accept the yapping of the lapdogs of the rich and powerful, who don’t want the efficiency of their wealth-accumulation upset by any ‘inconvenient truth’. Don’t they have children and grandchildren: or does wealth and power make you that blind? Well, it starved that old idiot Midas to death, I suppose.
Some, I believe, also deny because deep in themselves they fear it may well be true, but cannot see any collective way out, let alone anything they can do personally. As I always put it (reducing to a personal level), like someone not wanting to face the fact that they have a terminal illness.
My feeling is that many of these people are hoping a fictional Superman will swoop down and put the world right for them, because that’s the sucking-dummy such deeper insecurities have always been comforted with, especially in the U.S.A. Others deny the possibility of anything going seriously wrong because they are sure God would either never allow it to happen, or if it does, that He will intervene to put it right. After all, Mankind is the entire focus of His creation. Or if it does happen, it will be because He has sent it to punish us for our wickedness, so there is nothing we can do. I happen to believe we are utterly on our own in this.
The only philosophy that makes sense to me is to be true to your perceptions. That may not leave you looking into a comfortable crystal ball revelation, quite the reverse, but I find there is a strength and courage in facing adversity rather than burying heads in the sand. The future may look uncertain to me, but that does not ruin my life and leave me in despair, wanting to commit suicide. Quite the reverse, if anything it sharpens my senses and makes me more determined to make the most of every drop of existence.
And of course, if only by careful employment of democratic vote, composting organic waste, use of energy-efficient gadgets, etc., one should do one’s little individual best. Maybe it won’t make a whit of difference. But supposing it will? What’s the point of not giving it a whirl?
July 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Dave (291),
Now I’m in proper command of my wits again, and home and calm. If I take that idiotic extra digit off my population figure and reduce it to 5-6 billion, I wonder if that will restore my credibility?
Really, I only want to comment that I wish, oh how I wish, I could share your upbeat population prediction. I have to say though that neither the maths, the natural history or the human element of population dynamics supports your view. Despite my absurd blooper, I do happen to know enough about all of those to have no doubt that a smooth levelling off at 9 billions from where we are now simply isn’t on. No way. Full stop. That’s all I’m going to say unless you insist I give you a fuller explanation. I know you won’t accept my view. What you and I think won’t make a whit of difference to actual events on that scale anyway.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:28 am
****
295. Spanner in the works
…The only philosophy that makes sense to me is to be true to your perceptions…
And of course, if only by careful employment of democratic vote, composting organic waste, use of energy-efficient gadgets, etc., one should do one’s little individual best. Maybe it won’t make a whit of difference. But supposing it will? What’s the point of not giving it a whirl?
****
Spanner! Bravo!
The village in which I live is probably the “green” capitol of the USA, but our small size, 6400 total, with 5000 of those full time residents, means we aren’t even a blip on the radar for most people involved in the Green Movement. The village has been this way from it’s inception, so our being “green” isn’t for recognition but because it’s the right thing to do.
Recycling is a way of life. Composting is a way of life. Taking personal responsibility for, at the very least, the small patch of the planet upon which we reside, is a way of life…and these things are taught in our schools!
Another thing almost everyone does, at least those of us who are fortunate enough to own several lots besides the one we live on, is actively re-foresting what the builders (who came, destroyed, built some homes and left) left barren. The lot to our west is deep woods; the lot behind us still has scattered pines, but I have put in some additional trees, 6 Willows, so far, and an orange tree, with a plan for a line of something truly majestic along the entire back lot line; the lot to our east has pines large Pride of Madera bushes which grow all over town like beautiful, magical weeds. There, I have put in 2 Jacaranda, with plans for Wisteria, and what ever my local nursery advises until the lots are sufficiently reforested. The east border line is also being marked by a transplant of Pride of Madera plants, a living fence.
From our house, you cannot see the closest neighbor, though this is a trick of geography, but nearly everyone owns two, three, five, or more lots, and is doing just what I am doing.
You hit the nail squarely on the head when you said:
” What’s the point of not giving it a whirl?”
We do give it a whirl. It’s not always easy. But it’s right.
When something is right, it becomes easier the more you do it.
My crystal ball might not be clear, and the visions might be comforting, but at least it doesn’t lie.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
My crystal ball might not be clear, and the visions might be comforting, but at least it doesn’t lie.
* of course, that should read, “might NOT be comforting”
July 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
It is difficult to say whether our world is warming or cooling at any fixed moment in time. That being said, we can know with certainity many things.
1. The earth’s temperature has continually risen and fallen, short-term and long-term before and after man existed and continued to do so after man had the ability to make fire and use combustion engines.
2. Historic CO2 levels on earth show absolutely no correlation with the earth’s historic temperature. One look at a long-term chart graphing C02 and temperature would end the myth for the majority of the earth’s human inhabitants.
3. The 30’s were warmer than the 90’s.
4. The world would produce more plant life if the earth’s temperature was 1 degree warmer, as opposed to 1 degree cooler.
5. Meteorologists, climatologists, investors in alternative power sources, people trading in carbon credits, and Al Gore all make more money if you believe that CO2 emmissions are causing the earth’s temperature to increase.
6. Sun cycles and volcanic activity on the earth have much more to due with the earth’s temperature than anything man has done.
7. There are more polar bears now than there were 5 years ago.
8. Clearing millions of acres of land to grow foods like sugar cane and corn, and then burning that food, is a really bad idea.
9. The place that I live once had a glacier 30 miles north of here. It was also once a tropical forest. Currrently, it is quite temperate.
10. The book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the movie, “The Day After” were some of the most preposterous, unscientific things we have seen since the flood of Malthusian and Socialistic misinformation produced in the 60’s and 70’s.
11. If humanity truly believed that greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming than we should be talking about methane instead of C02 because methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 according to NOAA.
I’ll go out on a very small limb and say that financial interests and the belief of some that we must very quickly stop using fossil fuels is the reason we hear about this at all.
I think that we can make the earth cleaner without spreading propaganda and supporting carbon trading schemes at great cost to us all, with no impact on global temperature.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I usually keep quiet on controversial topics, but here goes. I think most people (here and elsewhere) is missing the point. The point is, or the points are: 1) how we use the earth’s finite resources, and 2) how we manage the waste by-products of that use.
1) a) The earth’s resources are finite. b) Finite resources will one day run out. c) Before they run out they will become prohibitively expensive. d) There are not enough resources for everyone in the world to enjoy the standard of living of, say the richest 10% of the world’s population (which includes most members of this site (believe it or not)). e) The crux (or cruces) of the matter is (or are) China and India. Australia banning incandescent light bulbs is going to have stuff-all effect if China opens one more coal-fired electricity station per week. (USA comes third, with its huge per capita and total resource use. Australia, even with its per capita use, ranks nowhere on the total use, because of the (relatively) small population.
2) Although the land, the oceans and the atmosphere are huge, we simply can’t continue to dump waste by-products into them without something happening sooner or later.
Either we manage changes to our consumption of the earth’s resources now, or have it forced on us later. (I was going to add “and on our children”, but it will be in our lifetime.)
July 31st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Guys, do u know there is something which is known as global dimming. Its something really very great. Check out more on wikipedia.
Another topic which is very hot right is about ocean acidification, its main two causes are acid rain and dissolving of anthropogenic co2, this is can be posted on this site!
Cheers
July 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
choadius,299,
Some of your points are ill-founded and need refuting. There’s no time to go into them all here and now, which would certainly amount to ‘information overload’ anyway.
So best to try to deal with one or two at a time in separate postings. Starting at random, here goes with your
“7. There are more polar bears now than there were 5 years ago.”
Using selective statistics to support a general argument is dishonest and ineffective, except for converting the gullible and ignorant. Shall I counter by telling you that scientists have recorded a reduction of around 60% in the number of Antarctic penguins over the last 30 years?
Neither statement necessarily proves anything. However, since you are using it publicly, I trust you know something about biology in general. I do, a bit. The undisputable fact is that the total wild biomass (combined bulk of living organisms) other than human beings on the planet is dropping consistently. That covers quantity. And the accelerating extinction rate of species is now so far past a background equilibrium that it is believed to be closing on that of a catastrophic extinction event, such as a major meteorite strike. That covers variety.
Besides, until a totally sterile condition is reached, there will always tend to be adaptable, opportunistic organisms that benefit from what is otherwise a deteriorating environment. Their numbers will increase, at least temporarily, as those of others fall. Scavengers, bacteria and weeds are good examples. Number fluctuation in isolation can signify many things. It would be absurd to imply that the existence of swarms of billions of locusts signifies abundance for all, rather than just very temporarily for locusts.
“4. The world would produce more plant life if the earth’s temperature was 1 degree warmer, as opposed to 1 degree cooler.”
What type and variety of plant life? Sheer quantity for basic human needs, or quality to support a biodiverse planet worth living on? Are you also supposing the temperature will simply stabilise at a pleasant extra degree then? Just like the earth’s population will magically stabilise once it reaches a precise ‘ideal’ optimum? Some would say the answer to that is, “Get real”.
Whether or not you still subscribe to the ever less popular view that mankind has little or nothing to do with global climate fluctuations, the drastic reduction of biomass and biodiversity by human activity is undeniable. Perhaps even more alarming, we are isolating much terrestrial-bound wildlife within limited confines and blocking or using much open space and many migratory corridors, something that has never before happened in the biological history of the earth. As a significant result there can be no spread of populations to cushion the impact of local catastrophe or disease epidemics. Nor are survivors of such events able to move out and re-establish in more favourable regions. Much of this has to do with your “flood of Malthusian misinformation”, another comment worthy of forthcoming severe attention. (Your addition of the gratuitous word “Socialistic” tells us all we need to know about your own ‘propaganda-free sources’.)
July 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
choadius, 299,
I have another few minutes in hand, so time for a quickie.
So next up in response to your
“5. Meteorologists, climatologists, investors in alternative power sources, people trading in carbon credits, and Al Gore all make more money if you believe that CO2 emmissions are causing the earth’s temperature to increase.”
That is best answered by the following compound question:
Could we possibly think of any powerful global political and economic interests who make more money by ignoring the possible ‘inconvenient’ implications of climate effects? Implications that might require ‘inconvenient’ modification
of vastly profitable multi-billion dollar exploitation of global resources using fossil-fuel based technology? Interests, moreover, that find it ‘convenient’ to label all opposition “Socialistic”?
I won’t insult readers and posters by providing the answer that a mere child could come up with.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
choadius, 299,
Ready for the next? In response to your
“11. If humanity truly believed that greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming than we should be talking about methane instead of C02 because methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 according to NOAA.”
You’re punching air there, my dear.
All those you attack or denigrate in your 5 & 10 are perfectly well aware of the methane problem and include it in their agenda. I refer you, for example, to James Lovelock,
The Revenge of Gaia: 45, 51, 61, 71, 73, 75 & 96-97. From p.96, after describing how much methane gets into the atmosphere: “The problem with these escapes … is that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon-dioxide. Fortunately, it has a relatively short residence time in the air, and about 8% of it oxidises naturally each year. In twelve years, only 37 per cent of any methane escape remains, the rest oxidising to carbon dioxide and water vapour. Carbon dioxide stays much longer in the air and has a complicated removal with an effective residence time of between fifty and a hundred years. About half the carbon dioxide we have so far added to the air Remains there.”
Report that to your industrialist friends, choadius; although of course they know perfectly well. To throw up the smokescreen of methane, like decrying the qualifications of world-class scientists, is yet another of their ways of trying to hide a certain ‘inconvenient truth’ from the world at large.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Your next, choadius 299.
“10. The book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the movie, “The Day After” were some of the most preposterous, unscientific things we have seen …”
Are you seriously presuming to insult our intelligence by suggesting publicly that a sensational commercial film, ‘The Day After’, represents any sort of scientific viewpoint? Since when did Hollywood present shining facts? Come on, do us all a favour. If you’re naïve, try to think before you post. If you’re a cynical representative of some interest or other, accept that your cover has been blown and run away.
As for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, nor is that by any means a serious scientific publication. It does not represent the result of anybody’s research programme, nor was it published by a trained academic. However, if you are going to make a sweeping attack on its many unscientific statements, I must ask you to cite at least half a dozen such examples in support. I will also ask you to post here the name of an equivalent publication, free of scientific errors in your opinion, which presents the opposite point of view. Stand up and be counted for your opinions and sources, or shut up.
For the record,it is worth pointing out that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is no more than a broad attempt to communicate with the public. Is the aim of the author nothing more than to enrich himself at the expense of the rest of us by spreading what he knows to be an enormous false alarm? Or is he trying to communicate a sincere and profound concern for a danger which he feels the rest of us should be aware of, educate ourselves about, and act upon as best we can? The answer is a matter for individual judgement. Personally, I have no doubt. I suggest that if you want to disagree publicly, you contest facts with facts, rather than with wildly subjective, unsupported opinions.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
choadius, 299,
Re your
“8. Clearing millions of acres of land to grow foods like sugar cane and corn, and then burning that food, is a really bad idea.”
I take it you are referring to biofuels. If so, I’m certainly not going to disagree there. I’m 100% with you.
It’s worth pointing out though that there are quite different agenda here. On the one hand biofuels represent a possible potential threat to the traditional fossil fuel industries. On the other is the objective and altruistic perception that they represent a severe threat both to humanity and the natural world. To grow sufficient to approach anything like our global needs would require several times the present entire land surface of the earth!
Your tone and wording suggests you too follow this humanitarian line. In that case you may be interested, as I am, in the possibility of an alternative small biofuel contribution. This would be derived from our some of our civilisation’s waste materials as a cost-effective and low-energy-input byproduct. It sounds promising. Let’s hope so.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
choadius,
“5. Meteorologists, climatologists … make more money if you believe that CO2 emmissions are causing the earth’s temperature to increase.”
“10. … some of the most preposterous, unscientific things we have seen …”
You would appear to be suggesting that scientists involved in the disciplines of meteorology and the climate deliberately distort what they know in order to extort money from the general public. Is that right? I find that a truly astonishing statement. Is that limited to those branches of science, or have you evidence of other respected academics who profit from making up sensational untruths? We ought to be told.
Presumably your basis is that forecasts of future climate events have not come about. Right. Let’s begin by recognising and accepting these are not exact sciences.
However, I notice from you statement Nº 10 that you seem to set store by science in general. So take a step further and recognise that whatever the limitations of climatologsts and meteorologists, you’re not going to get better from short order cooks, baseball players, newspaper editors or anyone in any other trade or profession. These poeople have spent their careers studying and researching their subjects.
What does that tell us? If they, as the best trained scientists we have, cannot predict future climate events, then nobody can. So if their knowledge makes them worried, don’t you think we ought to worry as well?
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Choadius,
Your comments:
“1. The earth’s temperature has continually risen and fallen, short-term and long-term before and after man existed and continued to do so after man had the ability to make fire and use combustion engines.
2. Historic CO2 levels on earth show absolutely no correlation with the earth’s historic temperature. One look at a long-term chart graphing C02 and temperature would end the myth for the majority of the earth’s human inhabitants.
3. The 30’s were warmer than the 90’s.
6. Sun cycles and volcanic activity on the earth have much more to due with the earth’s temperature than anything man has done.”
These are nothing more than desperate and irrelevant attempts to avoid facing certain facts. Two of those facts can be stated quite simply.
The present massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide matches absolutely perfectly the trajectory and intensity of the industrial revolution. There also now appears to be sufficient accumulating suggestive information to indicate that this is also affecting temperature and weather patterns: which at least concerns most reputable scientists.
The speed of changes that are happening now are not compatible with general and persistent natural background changes. These tend to take place over thousands of years, not decades. We know that from ice cores. If general global changes were so brutally abrupt, it is unlikely there would be the great diversity of life presently found on the planet. Adaptation by evolution in so short a space would have been impossible for too many.
As you haven’t yet replied, I’ll leave it at that. I don’t want to keep up an indefinite monologue.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Thank you, Anon, for the sane postings.
It is absolutely mindboggling how so many people accept anecdotal evidence from their manicurist or whomever over the people who have spent their lives studying (and writing about) these issues. The lack of respect for the scientific method is inexcusable in this day and age. Yes, you do have to take some things with a grain of salt (like the pathetic souls who sell out to the oil companies and the like) but the true peer reviewed science should shine out like a beacon over the hearsay and holy books.
I would tear my hair out if I had any to spare…
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
****
308. Anon
Choadius,
Your comments:..various and sundry gobbledygook
**
The speed of changes that are happening now are not compatible with general and persistent natural background changes. These tend to take place over thousands of years, not decades. We know that from ice cores. If general global changes were so brutally abrupt, it is unlikely there would be the great diversity of life presently found on the planet. Adaptation by evolution in so short a space would have been impossible for too many.
****
Anon, Choadius’ positions seem to fall into that trap I referred to some time ago; intellectual laziness.
It’s so much simpler to find answers in the popular press, or the barber shop, than to study the serious scientific papers and to follow the reality of the situation.
On the other hand, this past week and a half has been hell, and I’m in a fairly bitchy mood, so maybe I’m off base…but not doing your homework for something so serious as global warming is just idiotic. I live in a small village, on the central coast of California, which is entirely devoted to the environment. We all put every effort into protecting our planet, our ocean, our atmosphere, our home.
People who take global warming lightly, or as a conspiracy, or a joke, really anger me. The evidence is, and has been, so overwhelming and so available, it defies logic that anyone could deny it.
I don’t get it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
MplsBrad and segue,
Thank you both for your response and kind remarks. As Randall gets tired of making the same historical corrections, so I do making the same for climate change. However, I feel driven to it, because so much thoughtless drivel is published that might get sucked up by visitors to the site, taken as gospel and propagated further. As it is, I fear that glib misleading few-liners are far more likely to be read than careful and inevitably lengthier rebuttals.
segue,
Lovelock says the deliberate refusal to see and admit climate change reminds him exactly and frighteningly of the ostrich-posture of the majority as Hitler was building up his armaments to and beyond threateneing proportions. They didn’t want war, they didn’t want to think about war, and they didn’t want to see war coming or prepare for one, or hear anyone (Churchill) telling them it was coming anyway. Sorry about that sentence, but I guess you get the point.
Sometimes the last days of the Roman Empire or Nero fiddling come most readily to my mind.
MplsBrad,
If I had enough hair to spare myself I’d willingly share it …
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Actually, you two, there’s something I forgot.
Manicurists and barbers’ shops may be frightening enough.
But something more frightening yet emerges from the same cant facts and phrases that appear in numbers of these uninformed or malinformed posters. Posters who are unable to support their shallow comments and shut up as soon as they are faced with someone sufficiently armed to shoot them down. The parroted phrases and ideas belong in vigorously promoted anti-climate change publications which have been funded and promoted by certain religious and capitalistic economic sources and have sold widely throughout the world. Their facts are as flabby as those of their *disciples*, but nevertheless, they appear to have made a disturbing impact on general opinion.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Yay for intellectual snobbery!!
August 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
****
312. Anon…Their facts are as flabby as those of their *disciples*, but nevertheless, they appear to have made a disturbing impact on general opinion.
****
Spot on, and just another example of why I am frightened for the future of our home planet.
These deniers remind me of an old Twilight Zone episode, wherein one family on the block, during the height of the cold war, has built a bomb shelter in their backyard and stocked it, just big enough for their own family. The rest of the neighbors heckle and belittle the family for doing so.
Of course, one night the radio announces that the military has picked up nuclear warheads on their way to the U.S., and advises everyone to take shelter.
The family with the bomb shelter take refuge in it, locking the big steel door. One by one, the rest of the neighborhood shows up, begging to be let in. When the man of the family in the shelter explains the impossibility of their shelter holding more than his own family, the neighbors, in a fear-fueled rage, destroy the shelter.
Okay, your saying to yourself, why on earth does this scenario make her think of these global warming deniers?
If we can’t things under control, get alternative fuels on board soon, stop the destruction of the rainforests, stop the destruction of the great northern forest belt, stop the destruction of the ecosystems of both dry land and oceans we are looking at destruction of ourselves, as surely as if it were a nuclear bomb…just not as quickly.
And the deniers will be panicking at the door, “DO SOMETHING!” “SAVE ME!”
And it will be too late.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Tempyra,
Please explain and say who that comment is aimed at and why. Is it aimed at me? Read what segue has just written above, consider that I too, and many, many others sincerely and with a certain genuine despair feel the same, and tell us what point your flip throwaway has to offer this subject?
segue,
Where I once lived, primroses grew quite plentifully. As I grew up, more and more land was taken over for development. The population grew, so more folks went out each spring. Many picked them and some dug them up for their gardens every year as well. After a while you began to hear people commenting how there were fewer primroses than when they were kids. But really just commenting. The numbers continued to plummet and the event became sufficiently noteworthy for comments in the county naturalists’ society journal and botanical publications. Soon one or two *survival sites* were identified and people started screaming about what had happened to our primroses, and why hadn’t *they* done anything to protect them. Of course it was by then far too late. An attempt was made to protect the sites, including volunteer guards, but the mere rarity attracted the cunning to dig them up for their gardens. That, coupled with other accidents and a population which had fallen below its breeding threshhold, drove all that species into local extinction where I once lived.
That, equivalent to yours, is my little parable for why I fear so desperately for our planet.
End of my intellectual snobbery for the day, Tempyra.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Anon, that saddens me more than I can say. Not just because the Primrose is a very beautiful flower, but because the demise was hastened by simple greed.
I live in the U.S. state of California. Our state flower is the California Poppy. It is illegal to dig up a poppy plant.
In the village in which I live, the law goes further, it is illegal to remove *any* plant which is native to the area.
We take conservation, even at that small a level, vitally important.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
segue,
Difficult to be utterly sure. I would say the very last few primroses were definitely the victims of deliberate greed, but all the rest probably due to pure thoughtlessness. That combined with the Chinese water torture syndrome. One drip of a few drips have no effect. It’s relentless repetition. One of my friends says all our problems are down to numbers. If there were only a few thousand of us on the planet we could have nuclear wars to our hearts content, pollute without thought, and do all the horrible things we do. The planet would simply just tidy up after us, no trouble, the way it does after similar natural messes such as volcanoes.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Tempyra,
Cat got your tongue?
August 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
My dear Anon,
I’ve only just seen your comment questioning mine above.
“Yay for intellectual snobbery
” (with a winking emoticon!) was aimed at segue (310) and her slight criticism of the intellectual laziness of the masses, your (311 and 312) derision of those who only know the barest of facts, and the slightly condescending tone of those two comments you made. My comment was exaggerated for humourous effect (me thinking that a little humour was needed in such a depressing subject). If you had seen and noticed comments of mine elsewhere you might have realised I do this often.
I have no reason to criticise those who are informed and aware of global climate change. That would be silly, me being educated and quite opinionated in that area myself. I haven’t expressed any opinion here simply because the topic was posted back in April and I’d be repeating the views of others.
Cat got my tongue? No
August 5th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Tempyra,
Oh, that’s a nice response. Very glad the cat hasn’t. It’s a much nicer tongue than I feared and deserves to be free.
Trouble is, there are so many snide er, now which word shall I pick here from my vast palette of obscentities? … slanging and slagging on LV, that one gets over-sensitive. And some of them use the smiley thing to rub your face in their catshit! (There, that’s used one of them up.) I was all fired up for you being in that mould, and boy, the gloves would have been off, I promise, even though I don’t need to waste such futile energy.
Why bother then? Because there is so much cynicism and ignorance on this subject. This subject that might actually mean the future of life on this planet if the worst comes to the worst. So I go into orbit when it’s taken in vain. Sorry for the over-reaction. However my pontificating comes out for readers, it’s not intended to be snobbery, it’s born of frustration and even a certain degree of background despair.
I’m sorry I haven’t picked up on yours elsewhere, but if you’ve read some of mine round about, you’ll also know the very last thing I am is an intellectual snob. (I aspire, but fail, as with everything else in life!)
As you are probably aware, I wasn’t here in April, so have to chime in now. I don’t care if I’m repeating what others have said. I usually react to the most recent stuff, which, if it needs reacting to, means the earlier message hasn’t got through or is still being trampled on.
I love to inject my contributions with fun and humour too, but find it hard when they come as serious for me as this. I also suppose many people may be visiting this site and reading, so one cannot leave a piece of falsehood unchallenged, in case it is assumed to be unchallengeable.
Well that’s my potted philosophy in a nutshell.
I Don’t look for enemies or negative vibes, they’re bad news for me. We’re on the same wavelength and I hope friends, if you will. That would be great.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Anon,
Thank you for such a gracious reply
I’ve seen your comments elsewhere on Listverse and am pretty sure you’re not any kind of intellectual snob (intellectual yes, snob no). In fact, I like reading your comments – they’re thoughtful and objective – because your views, especially on climate change, agree with many of mine except that you write them better and are less lazy than I
As far as climate change goes, I’d prefer to end up in the situation described by Colin Beavan (if you don’t already read his blog I highly recommend a look-see) in this post of his:
What I’d say if I was wrong about climate change
August 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Tempyra, I’m somewhat at a loss for words here.
Intellectual snob, huh. Well, I’ve been called that, and worse, but without the cute smiley face!
So. My feelings are intact, I still think you a fine human being, and I am *not* a snob – for the record. I try to keep my intellect intact, but it’s a battle which I am not sure I am always winning, so your remark, even in jest, actually makes me feel better!
August 6th, 2008 at 1:47 am
segue: I’m somewhat at a loss for words also, because I couldn’t quite follow what you were saying in your last comment (322). My fault most likely.
I don’t think many people have any doubts about your intellect segue! Not me anyway, I’ve said before that I admire your intelligence (I can’t remember where but I know I expressed something like that somewhere) and appreciate your commentary.
Glad to accidentally deliberately on purpose make you feel better
Back to the debate you intellectuals!! (Before I get reprimanded for straying off topic haha)
August 6th, 2008 at 8:10 am
323. Tempyra, well thank you. Sincerely.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
How nice it is to end up like this. If only all LV were the same. BOOORRRRINNNGGGGG???!!!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Tempyra, 321,
Thanks for the interesting blog recommendation, which I’ve read, and of course agree with. Could I do otherwise?
I would only add to his observations that the economic and political naysayers have also added powerful conservative religious voices to their cause. I find this particularly nauseating, disturbing and threatening, because large numbers of institutional religious people everywhere accept the word of their authorities as being *intermediaries of God*. For them these soapboxers are transmitting some sort of transcendental, divine message. The flock is conditioned to take out and hang up their brains under these circumstances, because to challenge Divine Authority is sinful and blasphemous, and might even deprive them of the right to eternal life. Oh, sure, we no longer believe in a flat earth or our planet being the centre of the universe (although that would probably still be being argued if proof was not beyond contesting). And bikinis are alright now, even if they were sinful 100 years ago. But if God changes his mind, He will inform us through his ministers. It is not for us to make up our minds independently.
What staggers me is that most of these immensely powerful naysayers (except many of the priests) also have children and grandchildren. They seem as oblivious to the risk or one-way gamble they are imposing on those, as on themselves. The image of robotic lemmings rushing towards the sea and extinction arises again and again in my mind.
I have a friend who keeps piping plaintively, “But we must have been given our big brains for something.” No comment.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
In a way, I’ve been remarkably lucky in learning about not just global warming but, leading up to it, the kinds of damage mankind was, and is, doing to the earth.
Way back in my Uni days, one of my best chums was a fellow who is now one of the leaders of the Green Earth movement; a Hollywood name you’d all know. He turned me on to the whole idea back in the mid 60’s, so I have a bit of a running start. I behave in a way, thanks in great part to him, that is earth-friendly without even having to think about it. But I have 30+ yrs of doing so under my belt…it’s habit.
I raised my children that way, and I see them showing their spouses how to treat the earth, our home, with all the respect she’s due (though they seem to have come in pretty much knowing), we’ve all shown our friends, by example and words, and they pass it on.
It’s not a lot, I know.
One by one, we can change the course of history, change the course of destiny, if only *enough* of us are doing it, one by one.
Becoming despondent and giving up does no good. Neither does denying the horrible truth that we are quickly approaching critical mass.
Action must be taken immediately. If the political idiots (I won’t name names, but they are in power in a large North American country) won’t do what it takes to begin an immediate turnaround of global warming, we have only ourselves to save the planet.
A daunting task.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
segue,
Right. Never give up. Never droop. Treat you stay on earth here like your own life. You don’t live every day in despair because one day you’ll be gone. You enjoy life while you can and also take responsible care of yourself so that your stay will be as long, productive and wonderful as possible. That’s what we must do. That’s the best we can do.
One also always has to say: supposing my contribution was the straw I took off, that lightened the load and SAVED the camel’s back? There is not even hope of that if I become negative and do nothing. If you follow.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
****
328. Anon
…One also always has to say: supposing my contribution was the straw I took off, that lightened the load and SAVED the camel’s back? There is not even hope of that if I become negative and do nothing. If you follow.
****
Not only do I follow, that’s the way I’ve lived my life, and I’m glad I have.
I firmly believe that we all leave this earth either better off for having lived, or worse off.
My desire is to leave it better off…and I’m not done yet.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Anon,
What you mention in comment 326 is something I’ve started noticing as I observe international politics more closely. It astounds me how much religion affects the actions of politicians – either because they are religious, because their richest supporters are, or because the majority of their constituents profess to be.
I do think there is something of a “bottom-up” movement happening in churches (and mosques IIRC) around the world though, where more socially aware leaders are incorporating the ‘green’ (albeit, the more fashionable aspects of it) into their messages and the actions of their congregations. I can’t be sure of course, because I don’t go to church and I don’t live in America, which I think has the largest proportion of Christians in its population.
If religious leaders could manage some kind of paradigm shift, from treating the world as something given to them by God for their own use, to something precious entrusted to them by God, then that could alleviate the situation you wrote of above.
As for people believing the world is flat? Well, the flat earth society is still alive and kicking according to the BBC –> Do they really think the earth is flat?. Sorry to end my comment on a negative note, but I got a laugh out of reading that. The comments at the end of the article are worth reading the silliness of the interviewees too.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Tempyra,
I have something to post in response to your last when I can find time. WATCH THIS SPACE.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Will do
August 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Tempryra,
This isn’t it (my intended posting), but your 330 reminded me of several of the perverted arguments used by these holy joes. I’ve deliberately slightly exaggerated the tones, but not too much. They, of course, tend to dress it all up in much more sinisterly seductive, smarmy language.
1) That people who who show concern for wildlife and the emvironment are callous anti-humanty freaks who put creepy-crawlies and wildflowers before human poverty, suffering and needs.
2) That God put eveything on this planet for our use and convenience. That He has told us that clearly in the Bible, and that our only obligation is to make sure we use *his gift to us* to best advantage.
3) A complete denial that our species is any way linked to, or dependent on the natural environment. We are apart from and above it, the special interest of God, and that’s all we need to know. What we need to be aware of is that the interests of of sacred humanity are totally dependent on our fiscal economy, because that is the only way God’s will can be achieved (improving the lot of the poor).
4) Capitalism and self-interest benefits from the earth’s products, which inevitably leads to protection of and care for the environment. Socialism in all its forms is the mindless, Godless force that destroys the world we live in.
5) God instructed us to go forth and multiply. There is plenty of room in the world for us to go on multiplying indefinitely, provided we leave it to the miracles of modern capitalist science and industry to keep improving the efficiency of food production. Because they can and will.
When we have reached our *perfect* limit, God will ensure that the levelling off will happen *naturally*.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Nice wrapup of the religious mindset, Anon. These people set new records in rationalization.
Religious people refuse to believe we are just one big cosmic accident. For some bizarre reason, they feel there has to be some “reason” why we are here. That they find that “purpose” in musty “holy” books has always been a mind boggler to me.
We all need to realize that we (luckily) evolved from the primordial slime and we will return to the same if we do not become MUCH better caretakers of this planet. Nobody made us in anybody’s image with any special powers or any priorities over the available resources. We Americans already use WAY more of those resources than we deserve to.
Americans are no better than Canadians, Laotians, Iraqis or anybody else on this fragile sphere. I hope we understand that before it is too late.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
****
334. MplsBrad…Americans are no better than Canadians, Laotians, Iraqis or anybody else on this fragile sphere. I hope we understand that before it is too late.
****
Oh, MplsBrad, I do hope you’re not holding your breath!
Just take one look around at the military and economic decisions we’ve made which affect the worlds people and nations (and I’m talking recently), and I’d say any hope of our leadership coming to any kind of rational decision is fairly remote.
And heaven help us all if McCain, with his “energy policy” of more and more off-shore drilling, gets elected!
Have you done any homework on alternate energy sources? I betting you have. There are myriad sources of clean, safe energy, with which we could run our homes, our cities, our transportation systems and, yes, our cars.
The most important reason we won’t employ these methods is greed. Money. Moolah. There’s big bucks in oil. In finding it. In refining it. In selling it. In getting rid of the waste. No one wants to give up that kind of money simply to do something so esoteric as “saving the planet”.
It’s not as solid, as understandable, as a plaque, or an award, or a check for a billion dollars.
Remember the old adage “America Runs on Business”?
What that really means is “America Runs on Money”.
True then; True now.
Personally, as I’ve said before, I’ve always lived as Green a life as possible…since the mid 60’s!
I now live in a village an the central coast of California, which is probably the Green capital of the USA, but because we’re so small (and we’ll stay that way because of a permanent building moratorium) no one knows. It’s a good, easy, way to live.
My children grew up living a naturally “green” life, and they pass it along to spouses and friends.
I believe that it’s going to be up to us all, in great part, to behave in the way we know is right for the planet. We can’t leave it up to the government, or to big oil, or to someone – anyone – else.
We all have to take responsibility. Every single one of us.
Complaining isn’t taking responsibility, although it might get someone thinking about the problem, but taking action is what is required.
Sure, it’s hard at first. There are so many things to remember to do, *not* to do, so you don’t tackle them all at once. One by one, however, they’re a piece of cake. You make a new habit one by one.
Make a list of everything you want to accomplish, personally, as you think of them, and attack them one by one.
Get your friends and family to do it too. Maybe it sounds overly simplistic, but if *WE* don’t start, then who will?
August 9th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Tempyra,
The flat-earthers were (are?) a proper bunch of Bruce Willises , real *Die Harders*. Here’s one:
If you want to follow up the story, it comes from ‘My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions’ Vol 2: 364-376 (1905), by the great Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace was, of course, the famous explorer, collector of specimens and contemporary of Darwin, who independently thought up the theory of evolution at the same time. If Darwin had *not existed*, we should all now be talking about Wallace’s Theory of Evolution. Over 20 years back I picked up the the two volumes for 2 shillings (currently about 40c US, but probably worth about the equivalent of a couple of dollars US at the time). It was a bookstall at an open air flea-market in the south of England. Once in a blue moon I’ve got that lucky. The covers are a bit stained and battered, a few pages loose, but never mind the quality, feel the contents!
In 1870, a flat-earther called Hampden published an advertisement offering 500 sterling to anyone who could prove that any long stretch inland water wasn’t completely flat. Now I’m not sure exactly what that money was worth by today’s standards, but we are probably talking a few hundreds of thousands of US dollars.
Wallace, by then famous, and greatly respected in illustrious scientific circles, took up the challenge. A stretch of canal six miles long in Norfolk was agreed on.
A respected natural history editor was overall umpire and stakeholder, Wallace’s personal representative and referee a distinguished surgeon. (Is it already beginning to sound like a duel?)
Wallace duly set up sight-line telescopes and sets of discs on poles of exactly equal height. Of course the discs showen up at different levels due to the earth’s curvature. Wallace claimed victory, but Hampden made some technical objection about the optics of the telescope. That was sorted out for the second experiment, which of course gave the same result. Both personal referees agreed the result and signed. Wallace had won.
Even though Hampden continued to object, the umpire agreed unconditionally in favour of Wallace. The results were published in a famous magazine. However, in the interests of *fairness*, Hampden’s flat-earth referee was permitted to publish a long letter *explaining* that the experiments had actually proved that the earth was flat!
On the strength of that, Hampden demanded his money back from the umpire.
What neither Wallace or the umpire knew at the time was that the loser of a bet could legally claim his money back if he requested before the money had been paid to the winner.
Now began 16, yes sixteen, years of public and private trauma for Wallace. Ultimately, he lost in court costs and other expenses not only the 500 sterling he had won, but almost the sam amount of *his own* money. Yet he never failed to win a single court case.
Hampden immediately began writing to all Wallace’s friends and colleagues, all the learned societies Wallace belonged too, any connections of Wallace’s whose addresses he could find, accusing Wallace of being a thief, liar and swindler. He even wrote to Wallace’s wife asking her how it felt to be married to a convicted felon, and threatening to smash every bone in her husband’s body. Hampden was brought before a mgistrate by Wallace for this and bound over by a court order for three months, after which he continued in exactly the same vein. He was prosecuted for libel by Wallace and the umpire, forced to issue a public retraction, abd then continued worse than before. He libelled Wallace in letters to the famous Huxley, and even to the Prime Minister, Gladstone. This just went on and on for years and years. He transferred all his wealth to a relative, so that even though Wallace kept prosecuting and winning, Wallace had to pay all the court costs, as Hampden had declared himself benkrupt. During the course of all this, Hampden won an action to recover his 500 sterling, and Wallace lost that money, as it had to pay the court costs of the cases he had won. Hampden continued for many years after this to publish and distribute widely by the thousand many pamphlets and leaflets in the same vein. In the end Wallace gave up and let him carry on. He was simply losing too much to no avail trying to stop him.
A truly astonishing story, eh. Wallace was one of those folks who had a wonderful life and good health, but was unlucky in so many other things, mainly the evolution theory and money. Every careful investment he made went wrong too through no fault of his own. (Sounds a bit like me, if only I were famous and had achieved what Wallace did!)
Here’s a final twist in the tail, which you may find almost too hard to swallow. Hampden was educated at Oxford University, then, if not now, considered the finest or equal finest in the world.
That was little over 100 years ago. Has human nature changed so much meantime? May we expect something similar from those who refuse to accept factual evidence of climate change?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Anon,
I can add another ‘argument’ used by the religious (I’m using Christianity as an example, but other religions might behave similarly) to justify continuing the depletion of Earth’s resources
6) It doesn’t matter because the world is coming to an end soon (the Apocalypse). All these natural disasters, wars, corrupt governments, and other catastrophes are just signs that the Rapture is imminent. So one might as well carry on in the same fashion.
Regarding your comment (336) about Alfred Russel Wallace – that is absolutely incredible (literally, incredible
). It boggles my mind that someone with as prestigious an education as Hampden had could be so close-minded. There must have been some degree of personal animosity involved for both parties to go to such lengths though?
Wallace is still famous though, whereas I hadn’t heard of Hampden, so history didn’t screw him too badly. I don’t know much about his personal life but I have read about how he came up with natural selection independently of Charles Darwin. His work in the field of biogeography is more familiar to me though.
I have no idea why there is so much scepticism regarding climate change. Sure, the predictions that scientists are making may not be 100% accurate but what have we got to lose by playing it safe? As someone who reads about green technology on a daily basis, has seen first hand the beauty and comfort of low-tech homes, as well as having experienced the pleasure of growing and making my own food – living a resource-efficient life seems so much more fulfilling than the life of the ‘average’ Westerner. In my experience it’s more relaxed, less expensive, simpler, and healthier. I just don’t get why people are so reluctant to change. It genuinely puzzles me.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Tempyra,
Thanks for the reply.
I’ll be back to continue with a bit more later. I’m just reviewing the sites right now.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
337. Tempyra…I have no idea why there is so much scepticism regarding climate change…
****
Tempyra, I can give you a little bit of personal information regarding this reaction.
My brother, a very intelligent, very conservative guy, is absolutely positive that global warming is all media hype.
His argument is that global weather changes are natural, and cyclical and that global warming, like the global cooling scare of a decade or so ago, is just another news story. He actually forms opinions about people, sight unseen, on whether or not they believe in global warming.
I’ve shown him scientific evidence, I’ve told him about shows to watch on television on the subject. It doesn’t help. His mind is made up. It’s set in concrete. There is no global warming.
All the scientific evidence? Bunk! False! Somehow, someway, it will turn around into higher taxes.
Tempyra, it seems to me that, for at least some, the people who doubt global warming are sincere about their beliefs, as stupid as they are.
That my children and I have been living a green lifestyle all along hasn’t made a dent in my brothers attitude.
Weird?
Sure.
You made a lot of great arguments in your post above, but these people aren’t rational on the issue. You can’t make a rational argument with someone who isn’t rational.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
segue,
That situation pervades almost every aspect of humanity, and it’s frightening to me in this day and age when we so badly need to get things right, and quickly.
Basically, we are only all in agreement where there is absolute proof, as near one can get. For example an aircraft either flies or it crashes. That’s not a matter of opinion or belief. It’s a matter of life or death! As the Hampden flat earth story above proves though (more anon, he says, punning on his own pun), even absolute proof at a more abstract level can sometimes be overidden indefinitely. There is almost no limit to which even the most intelligent won’t go either to back up their hubris (rather than back down), or to defend something so totally crucial to their concept of life and existence that they cannot let go. I may have noted before here, but it always amazes and amuses me that of two brilliant scientists or surgeons who are in unison professionally, one will be a 100% atheist, the other a totally devout catholic.
This time, if we all wait for proof to provide unanimity for action, it will almost certainly be too late (if there is climate change, and if it is as serious as many who inform themselves believe).
August 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
340. Anon…This time, if we all wait for proof to provide unanimity for action, it will almost certainly be too late (if there is climate change, and if it is as serious as many who inform themselves believe).
****
There is nothing to wait for. We have all the proof. The metaphorical plane has crashed.
We are on the razors edge of the point of no return, many of us here, and many of those we know, and many in the scientific community are dancing as fast as we can.
When I see the scope of people who are truly concerned about this issue, I am encouraged.
You hit the nail on the head when you said:
“There is almost no limit to which even the most intelligent won’t go either to back up their hubris (rather than back down), or to defend something so totally crucial to their concept of life and existence that they cannot let go.”
Exactly.
My brother has a world-view and a family-view that overlap, both must be perfect, must be exactly as he imagines them to be, or he doesn’t recognize them. Literally.
Bizarre?
Youbetcha! But absolutely true. People, things, events, all come under this same order.
Maybe others are like this. Maybe this is part of the reason some people don’t accept global warming. It simply doesn’t fit their world-view.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:00 am
segue,
“My brother has a world-view and a family-view that overlap, both must be perfect, must be exactly as he imagines them to be, or he doesn’t recognize them. Literally.
Bizarre?
Youbetcha! But absolutely true. People, things, events, all come under this same order.
Maybe others are like this. Maybe this is part of the reason some people don’t accept global warming. It simply doesn’t fit their world-view.”
You know, my bet is that Hampden wouldn’t have accepted any view but the flat earth, even to save his life. It would be as if he were in an aircraft heading straight for the ground, closed his eyes and said he knew it was flying straight and level. He would call anyone who told him otherwise a liar because God wouldn’t let it be otherwise, and no, he wasn’t going to jump out and use his parachute.
It reminds me of a tale I once heard, as does yours above. I don’t know whether it was apocryphal, but it’s a wonderful parable. When Cook’s ‘Endeavour’ sailed along the shores of Australia, a canoe-load of aborigines was passed at close quarters and looked straight at it. The crew had noted and recorded the point at which this happened, although the vessel itself sailed on without anchoring there. Later travellers arrived and made contact with that group of aborigines. They were surprised that nothing was mentioned of Cook’s passing several years earlier. When a settlement was established and language communication made, it transpired that the tribesmen had indeed *looked at* this enormous, strange apparition, but because it was so utterly and completely outside their experience, they had not *seen* it.
Perhaps this too is part of the non-climate change acceptance phenomenon by those who are presented with the facts. We should ask ourselves too how many of the world’s
6-7 billion-odd inhabitants actually have the faintest idea of the problem’s existence. The matter then becomes a simple question. Will the collective weight of knowledge and force for recognition, but above all decisive and rapid action, be sufficient to overcome the inertia of resistance and ignorance, given the collective political and cultural power and sheer weight of numbers that the latter is composed of?
The secondary question relates to my aircraft metaphor. For how many will practical *proof* only be provided as and after the machine hits the ground and explodes?
segue, I wonder what would be your brother’s reaction to this site, and in particular some of the exchanges between the three of us?
Well, we can each only do our bit, no more, to overcome the inertia. That’s why I bother to post here and also attempt to raise consciousness in any relevant published writings of mine.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
342. Anon…It reminds me of a tale I once heard…it transpired that the tribesmen had indeed *looked at* this enormous, strange apparition, but because it was so utterly and completely outside their experience, they had not *seen* it.
****
I am familiar with this phenomena, having experienced it. My husband and I were passing the Hearst Estate, which is very close to our village, and there was a herd of cattle grazing in the field.
Jack said, “Look, the zebras are with the cattle today”, and with that POP! a dozen zebra were suddenly in view, where seconds before, no zebras existed.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading about this particular phenomena, and it is absolutely real. There could be a lot of things in our world which we don’t see, because we don’t expect to see them. We have no experience of them.
****
segue, I wonder what would be your brother’s reaction to this site, and in particular some of the exchanges between the three of us?
****
He would dismiss us out of hand, angrily. If he knew segue was me, the anger would be 100-fold.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
segue,
How it pains me to say this. People who react thus unreservedly deserve what might come to them. Those who depend on them, their judgement and actions don’t.
“There could be a lot of things in our world which we don’t see, because we don’t expect to see them. We have no experience of them.”
I wonder if the converse holds too. That there are a lot of things we see because we WANT to see them. UFOs? Miracles?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Faces and the like in phenomena such as fires and clouds?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Or Jebus on a grilled cheese sandwich/store window/Cheeto…
August 12th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
344. Anon
I wonder if the converse holds too. That there are a lot of things we see because we WANT to see them. UFOs? Miracles?
****
Interesting theory, and more than possible.
I believe in keeping an open mind, but within reason.
I can’t believe in UFOs. If some other-planetary race were advanced enough to have overcome the physics required to cross the vast distances of interstellar space, would they choose to visit us?
No.
I don’t have a problem believing that there are other intelligent beings on other planets around the Universe, but that they would look anything like us, that we would even recognize them as living beings, is more likely than they would be loosely based on our pattern.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
segue,
Essentially agreed. Assuming the conquest of time/space were indeed possible, further assumptions become inevitable. Would any organism so advanced simply cruise around most of the time, and only communicate more or less randomly every now and again? What human explorer crossed oceans and just stooged offshore, allowing the odd native the very occasional enigmatic glimpse? On the other hand, if the UFO species had an advanced and active conservationist *observe but don’t intervene* policy, it would certainly have the technology in place to ensure we were totally unaware of its presence. If its intentions were sinister, would it really need to waste time reconnoitering (I bet that’s wrong spelling) for four decades or so, if not for much of human history, or more? How is its life-form sustained the while? If it moves through dimensions, even greater queries and objections arise. If we are all descended from it, as some claim, then it isn’t alien either!
O.K., I know those who *know* UFOs and aliens exist will have totally justifying answers to all that, just as believers in God have for agniostics and atheists. I’m merely presenting here (some of) the arguments my *non-belief* is based on. My mind is essentially scientific when it comes to these matters, so of course I’m open to being converted by uncontrovertible evidence that would be accepted by the world of science. That excludes being gullibly open-minded and ending up like Conan-Doyle and the phake phairy fotos!
However, I also find a phenomenon such as corn circles raises intriguing questions. Not because it would be impossible for humans to achieve, but it’s so difficult to do successfully and convincingly, it’s hard to see why anyone would go to such lengths.
Yet the corn circle thing has a common hallmark of all these phenomena. They usually appear out of the blue one day. They dominate interest for a set period, which often corresponds to the *public attention-span of media news*, and then fade into the background or fade out of sight. Nothing ever *comes* or develops further of these things.
And yet again, there was the Piltdown Man hoax, showing the lengths to which someone may go to bamboozle the worlf of science.
“Nessie” is another example. Now largely if not entirely discredited, thanks to sophisticated sonar sweeps, any biologist should have been able to provide the hand-off virtually from the word go. Infallible evidence is called effective breeding numbers, which such a creature would have to have. The coelocanth is not a comparative example either, since it has never appeared naturally on the surface and is totally adapted to survive in the ocean deeps. If a hangover from earlier biological times had indeed existed, biologists could fairly comfortably work out its breeding number requirements, thus how many of them would be around at any given time, and, taking the size of the beast and Loch Ness and supposed sightings into account, give a pretty accurate estimate of how many times it should be seen, which would be frequently and regularly.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am
348. Anon, agreed. I’ve read deeply into these phenomena, and how the mind tricks people into seeing one thing in place of another, or *not* seeing something which is directly in front of them.
I read about the Conan-Doyle fairies, Piltdown Man, and many more. If you want a terribly UNscientific, but amusing in its serious tone, try reading anything by Charles Fort. The man was a loon, at the very least, but he sure knew how to collect the esoterica of the world and build a conspiracy, or a world-view, around them. He wrote 4 books, made up of clippings of extremely odd occurrences (like rains of fish) from around the world, adding his own interpretation, between 1919 and 1932.
So popular were his thoughts, as bizarre as they were, that Fortian societies still exist.
So now the answer to your question becomes, were *some* of Fort’s observations accurate because he was open to seeing them, or because he desperately wanted to see them.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
segue,
I’ve heard of Fort, but that’s all. There must be something further about him in Wikipedia. It seldom lets me down (and I should repay it one day by feeding in info and pics of our own speciality, but we have to publish enough first!).
Science tries to protect itself from attempts on the integrity of its methodology. It does so by such procedures as peer reviewing, insisting that experiments be repeatable and that phenomena are observable by independent, uninvolved and qualified witnesses. But not everything falls into that category, and no system is watertight.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Anon,
Fort would fail every test! His methodology was, basically, if such-and-such happened here, and then some time later, happened again half a world away, they *MUST* be connected!
The thing is, of course, that because he was so open to accepting anything that came his way, the odds of his actually coming across something of worth were higher than they were for someone whose parameters were far more rigid.
That’s not to say I’ve found anything in his writings which would lead me to believe in little green men or two-hooved demon-men, showers of worms or men disappearing in front of their families and friends.
It would be a funny experiment to load all of Fort’s works into a computer and run it against known data, just to see if anything pops up.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:44 am
segue,
An amusing memory just fell out of my head. I now recall when I first heard of Fort, and from whom. It was a long, long while back, and when he told me, it sounded like he had said “fourteen societies”, and I couldn’t figure out what on earth he meant. Something immediately distracted us and we never got around to the subject again. Next time we’re in England (scheduled for 2011, if not earlier), and if we meet up, as he’s way out in the sticks, I’ll have to find out what he knows and thinks about it. He’s extremely bright.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Anon,
What an interesting idea! I’d love to be a fly on the wall during *that* conversation!
I’m utterly astounded that people still believe in him, but then, people will believe anything presented in a fashion which intrigues them or promises them a better life somewhere, somehow…(and, no gang, I’m not knocking religion, just some of it’s spokespeople).
Yes, ask him, by all means. I’m dying to know what an actual scientist would have to say about the whole affair!
August 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
segue,
I’ll certainly tell you of any consequences. Actually big M.J. isn’t a scientist, he’s a bit of a jack-of-all trades like me. He was my field partner during our early major explorations in the Near East and our first six-monther to South America. A great and lovely guy. Anita adores him and calls him *the perfect English gentleman* for his tall stature, conservative dressing, attitude and manners. His mind ranges over so many subjects, and being retired now he spends much time in the library. (Living in Britain, his pension is updated for inflation, besides which it has been almost doubled to what the British government considers is a minimum standard of living. Thanks to the same government’s policy, which they admit is unjust, as one living abroad, I simply recieve my same non-adjusted initial pension. It will remain that way for life unless *our* case is won in the European Court of Human Rights. Even then I shall never receive the massive UK supplement he gets. When we both *retired* ha, ha, seven-odd years ago, our pensions were more or less on a par. I believe he now receives three times or more than I do. Well, I could go back, sponge off the state and quickly freeze to death, I suppose!) M.J. once commented that he and I might write a small encyclopaedia between us, but the only use for all we have in our heads is to give us a head start over most others in ‘Do You Want to be a Millionaire’! Together, we’ll mull over pointless obscurities, such as the airship shot down in WW1 near where he lived being a Schütte-Lanz make and not a Zeppelin, plus the name of the pilot who shot it down and the machine he was flying, which probably both of us might happen to know independently. I doubt very much he’d swallow anything Fortian-wise hook, line and sinker. The last thing you’d call him is gullible. He might though have been cherry-picking for realistic possibilities, as you mentioned, or perhaps drawing my attention to something that would amuse me.
segue, believe me, if you were a fly on the wall during any of our conversations, you’d simply fall asleep.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
354. Anon…segue, believe me, if you were a fly on the wall during any of our conversations, you’d simply fall asleep.
****
I don’t know, I have a very high tolerance for intellectual badminton.
I spent most of the day, and will spend most of tomorrow, hand coloring a photograph I shot. I have my own technique , and every teacher I’ve ever had, from undergrad to grad, has said I’m the best they’ve ever seen. I can’t see it (being *that* good), but I love it, so I really take care when I do it. I also tend to use alternate colors, not those found in reality, in nature.
This one is for a birthday gift for my son, who has always loved my art and who, I found out at his wedding a year ago, has bragged to all of his friends about his mothers talents.
His wife, who is getting her PhD in poetry on a full scholarship, loves *my* poetry. She’s impressed because her own family is completely uninterested in the arts…even her own!
I raised a houseful of artists, who married artists, so why is anyone surprised that I’m an artist?
August 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
segue,
Do you know, know of, or know anything about Michael Brant Shermer? By relevant chance our TV channel was showing a programme on Roswell (well explaining why Roswell had nothing to do with aliens from outer space) this afternoon gone. The name of Shermer cropped up as myth-buster and explainer of the human psychology that leads people to believe in all things occult and extra-natural that lack scientific foundation. He has written quite a few books on the subject. He’s also a bike freak! If you know him, I’d be pleased to hear a few words on your opinion. If not, look up as Michael Brant Sherman: Wikipedia. Sounds as if he belongs in quite a few LV topics, though I’d be surprised if his hadn’t appeared here already.
I was starting to respond to your above, but have transferred it to a file to continue. Our Fernando Gonzales is about to try for tennis gold against the I fear invincible Nadal, so here’s for an hour or so of suffering. At least he can’t do worse than silver. My turn to shower the congratulations on you for Michael Phelps, what a man! But, oh, that Jamaican WR in the 100 metres! I swear the fellow was was slacking off before he reached the line too: there seems to be more in the engine yet. I think I’ve managed to keep in touch with most of the British medals, well certainly the golds, and mostly as they happened. Must check on the internet. Shame for Paula Radcliffe in the marathon, though, she’s such a gutsy mum (like another I wot of), and had her heart set on it.
I’ll try to get the above-mentioned comment finished, along with other communications I owe here and there. Anita and I have just been tarting up some of her recent digitals around the garden, which we intend to send to friends, as we regularly do.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am
356. Anon
segue,
Do you know, know of, or know anything about Michael Brant Shermer?
****
Yes, I happen to have a couple of his books…one signed by him to me.
My take? At first, I took him pretty much, though not entirely, at face value, but over the years I have backed off just a bit, finding him to be almost as fanatic in his skepticism as the other side is in their belief in all things otherworldly. It’s almost as if he takes pride in not believing in anything.
So, all in all, my take on him is one of extremely cautious acceptance. I take what he has to say as more than likely the truth, but I require much more evidence than his word.
Paula Radcliffe! I was so sure, for so much of the race, that she was going to be able to pull it off. I was rooting for her. Sadly, it wasn’t her race.
Michael Phelps is phenomenal! The greatest swimmer ever, and only 23? My God! What can he still do?
The biggest problem with the Olympic events, of course, is that China is on such a different time schedule. By the time the events I’m most interested in come along, it’s way past my bedtime.
Ah well, there are always the highlights shows next day.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
segue,
Thanks, ah, got you. Thought you’d be bound to know about him. So if Font is poison, Shermer may perhaps be said to be the antidote. Or alkali to Font’s acid. Both dangerous on their own, but they neutralise out! At all events, Shermer sounds a pretty good Devil’s advocate to consult.
Fernando played heroically and handled some points quite brilliantly, but as his manager remarked, he was up against a a robot (Hasta la vista, baby!). I’ve followed tennis since early adolescence and have had one hero and world’s best after another. I cannot get behind Nadal with great enthusiasm: I prefer someone more human like Ilie Nastase or your Macca, or less upfront. But last night I could scarcely draw back from total admiration at his play, and claiming him the best male player of all times. How do these guys we’ve just been mentioning just go on getting better and better results and performances, Is there no limit?
Fot the first time last noght I checked the medal standings on the official olympic website. China way ahead, U.S. second and the only other major accumulator so far. My anticipation of one or other between Russia, Germany or Australia as third was astonishingly swept aside. It said Great Britain. I still think I must have been dreaming or sleep-walking. How recent was that anyway? At all events it’s our best performance since goodness knows when. I wonder if Blair’s long period in office and his policies have anything to do with it (training facilities, subsidies, etc.)?
The dinghy racing in the storm was awesome: including a completely shattered Danish craft. Well, if any, Brits are used to that sort of weather!
August 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
A SHORTISH RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO ARE SCEPTICAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR DISBELIEVE.
If you have none, assume you do have children. If you were away from your house, where they were alone and unable to get out, and someone told you it was on fire, would you ignore the warning if
(1) you could see no smoke yourself or considered any smoke was due to some harmless cause?
(2) You didn’t like or trust whoever was warning?
(3) They or somebody else had said the same earlier and it had not proved to be true?
(4) You considered you needed more people to tell you before you would take the warning seriously, and that would have to include someone you trust implicitly? or
(4) Whoever was warning hadn’t managed to convince you beyond doubt?
Would you then simply assume *cry wolf* or *silly scaremongering* and carry on without checking? Remember, your children are in the house (as all present children and their children will stand to inherit the future earth, if habitable). Could you live with yourself if there really was a fire and your children died? Ask yourself that, you glib dismissers, because that’s what’s at stake.
Want the cliché that *goes with the furniture*?
“Better safe than sorry”.
Fact 1. An infinity more of current jobs and interests depend on the *non-existence* of global warming than on its existence.
Fact 2. Virtually all academic scientists involved in the disciplines which touch on the subject are convinced. Do you disbelieve and mistrust all doctors on the subject of medicine? All mechanics on vehicles? All electronics experts on electronics? Space scientists aren’t the people to trust to reach and investigate Mars? Come on. Wake up, please.
I won’t apologise if these points have already been made. They cannot be reiterated often enough.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
PS re 359. The use of caps was deliberate and the commentator is unrepentant!
August 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
359. Anon…Bravo! Well said.
How I wish there were a way to convince the worlds leaders and peoples of the reality of this crisis!
What is wrong with people, that they can’t see the truth of such an obvious and far reaching problem? I keep thinking the answer, for a great many, is that such overwhelming disaster, looming just over the horizon, is so horrific, that they tune it out rather than face it.
I imagine anyone facing true horror must have some sort of “off” switch, which they throw in a semi-aware state.
Whatever the answer is, we need to wake people, leaders and citizens alike, up to face the problem.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
segue,
Divided we fall…
August 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I should have made the following clear before.
The term GLOBAL WARMING is virtually a red herring. Or perhaps rather it plays onto the hands of those who deny.
A major criticism has been that there seems to be as much or more cooling as warming. That forecasts of early disasters due to heating of the atmosphere have simply not come about.
Major disasters no, not yet. But if reduction of the Antarctic penguin population by app. two thirds in about 30 years is not some sort of a natural disaster, and may not be pointing the way to something even more drastic, then what is it? Plenty of similar *unnatural* natural pointers are occurring.
The truth is that CLIMATE CHANGE better fits what is happening, although effects of heating are far from lacking in that. More rain in some places, more drought in others. More excessive heat here, more cold there. At present in bursts. If anyone thinks our awareness of extremes of weather is simply due to better means of communicating them via the media, just start to tot up how many at local levels are breaking all records since records were started, or at least way back. A bit like the Beijing olympics in fact.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
359. Anon:
Many people talk about scepticism as something that isn’t. Someone who deny compleatly climate change just because someone have used some bad trick is not an sceptic. An sceptic sais: “well, let’s forget those things and start again. From the begining and we’ll make a coherent thing from all the points.” And that means build things from the doubt, without being afraid to get punished for your questions.
Sceptics doesn’t say “you’re wrong”. They’re saing “¿are you sure?”. But many times the sceptic is shown to know more about global warming than the one who is deffending it. And that makes the ilusion of a dialectic duel that ends in “global warming is wrong”. The sceptic is still doubting, without knowing if it’s true or false, but the deffender many times get hurt in his confidence, and start thinking that that guy have been “scheduled” or paid to make propaganda against global warming and in favour of industrialization.
I’m a scientist sceptic in everything (it’s my source of knowledgmet) and I’ve been there many times.
about fact2…
when scientist agree in so an open topic, with so many holes, lack of evidences, and so many proved hoaxes… then the science is dead.
Hopefully you’re wrong in this point. Science is still discussing climate change itself and it’s causes if there’re any.
Global warming is still an hipotesis, not yet a theory. And everyday there’re more proves against and in favour of it.
To shut up the mouth of those who ask questions searching for knowladgement is not the scientific way. You may see that trick is comming from another world: politics
It’s time to tell politics (from both sides) without any knowledgment about science but lots about evil tricks to get away and let scientist do our work. And remember, everytime a politic is out there many interest are hidden behind him, and not moral or ethics but money ones.
And that will be maybe one of the rudest jokes in history: one of those politics, someone who harm science so much receiving a Novel prize.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
JB, I don’t know where you’re from and, frankly, I don”t care, but what I do know is that you are no scientist.
How do I know this?
You have told me, and everyone who read this pathetic post, that you weren’t a scientist and, further, probably not even out of secondary school.
The number of spelling and grammar mistakes are simply abysmal. Even though English is not your first language, a scientist would make sure that points of grammar and spelling were well in line with the norm, because to sound as if your paper were written by someone completely unaware of the rules of grammar is to have your paper dismissed out-of-hand!
You, my dear JB, are nothing more than a schoolchild with too much time on his hands. Time which would be better spent studying not only spelling and grammar, but science!
Global warming is real. Global warming will begin to reach crisis proportions in *YOUR* lifetime, and will have a dire affect on the lives of your children and grandchildren.
This is well past the stage of hypothesis, JB, the proofs have been observed and been observed being replicated. The decrease of sea ice, and the subsequent deaths of so many penguins and polar bears, the chances of of weather, and the subsequent flooding in some areas, with massive loss of life, both human and domestic animal, and desertification of once lush forest, with massive loss of life of the forest dwelling animals, both large and small, both known and unknown, plants, as yet undiscovered and now gone for good, which may have held the answer to curing countless diseases. With the spreading desert, comes hardship for the animals who depend on the savanna, and the yearly migrations to waterholes, which have shrunk to half their former size, or disappeared into mud-holes.
Do you want more?
The weather changes, inland, are recreating dustbowl conditions. It’s still spotty, but America, which used to be the worlds Bread Basket, can barely feed itself.
The worlds oceans are warming in the top few inches, where the most important food sources, the top (or, rather the bottom) of the entire food chain live, making it impossible for them to live. If that rung on the food ladder collapses, what happens to the rest? Certainly, some will adapt, but the largest of all creatures, the baleen whales, depend entirely upon those smallest of creatures. Shall we loose the baleen whales because a few hard headed “scientists” (scientists exclude you, JB), don’t believe in global warming?
Anon can address this much better than I, he is a real scientist, I am merely well-read. Yet I was impelled to put in my own 2 cents worth. This subject is far too important for me, for you, for my children, for every man, woman, child, and creature on this planet, for me to keep quiet.
Global warming is real. Global warming, unaddressed, will be the death knell of this planet. We have the chance to change that. We have the chance to save not only ourselves, but all of the beauty that surrounds us.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
JB,
Let’s put this in really easy, short terms that a child may understand.
You are a passenger, one of many in a large aeroplane. You are flying blind in cloud and fog in mountain country. The pilots think the radar may be wrong. They are not sure. One says no, it’s O.K. we can keep flying low, like we are. The other says, I’m sure you are wrong, these instruments are not the same as usual, they seem to be wrong. The pilots are arguing while the aircraft is flying almost as low as the mountain tops.
Now. You are a passenger on that aeroplane. Maybe you even believe the pilot who says all is O.K. is right. But do you want to wait and see? Are you prepared to have the aircraft smash into the side of a mountain with you and everybody else on board killed if he is wrong? Is that a risk worth taking? Or would it be much more sensible to take the aircraft up to a really safe height well above the mountains?
Ask yourself. Because, believe me, that is the choice we are facing. This is not some kind of abstract chemistry experiment where we can wait until it’s over and say, “Oh yes, it worked.” Or “Oh dear, it didn’t work.” And carry on our lives as if nothing had happened. If it happens, this will not only change our lives, it may even end them. Believe that and make it frighten you, as though someone might be going to drop a nuclear bomb on you at any time. You wouldn’t want to wait and see then, would you?
We are talking about our lives, our real lives, yours and mine, like they were the lives of people in that aeroplane of mine. Believe me. Wake up and fight for yours if you care about it, or for your children (if you have any, or when you do), or for their children’s children. And for everything or anything that means something to you on this Earth.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
segue,
What are the odds that JB has just drifted in to post a long, opinionated, uninformed comment, and then drifted off never to check back or return to the topic?
That looks to be so typical of the response to anything serious in LV. Too many people lack open minds. They know best. They do not want to be influenced by others with specialised knowledge or personal experience, or learn from them. Or if they have read and do appreciate, they cannot even be bothered come back and thank a respondent civilly with a couple of words for taking their comment seriously and replying. What distresses me most of all is that so many give the impression of being young. Is there any hope? Yes or no, we cannot give up, I suppose.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
We cannot give up, no matter what.
No matter that JB is a child, trying to stir up the grown ups, now off to some other piece of naughtiness (the cyber age version of phoning up the local tobacconist, asking if they have Prince Phillip in a can).
I know I’ll continue the attack whenever, wherever it’s needed.
As a side note, hurricane Gustav is perhaps 3 days aways from devastating the same area Katerina wiped out just 3 years ago. Mandatory evacuations are already being called.
The hurricane activity has increased, and become more deadly, in the past few years.
Global warming just a rumor?
Tell that to the people of Louisiana.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
366. Anon:
Yes, you’re right. That’s the point: whether to do or not the prevention.
My opinion is that is necesary to make something, but not at any price. We must try to live in a more sustainable way. From my part I do my best. I never take the car if it’s not absolutely necesary and I even go walking everywhere when I have the time.
What if a pilot sais: “ok, the only way to gain altitude is to throw away some passangers through the windows” ?
There’s the problem. It seems like “everything” is allowed to fight agains climate change. From biofuels, to reductions in the 0,7% of GPD agreed to help the devolopment of the 3th world, and of course, that new 1% assumed to be invested compleately in Global Warming.
They’re wanting us to see like is a problem about money, and it’s not. It’s a problem about way of living. Of course money will help but we still don’t know how to invest it couse we don’t know really how climate change works. (for reducing CO2 emisions we’re investing it absolutely in a wrong way). ¿But who will be riched by just good actings?
Acording to what we’re living those years, some people won’t waste a second to throw his neighbour through the window, couse their childs are much more important to be saved. Meanwhile the pilot will start to point some peaks-like clouds just to make the decision easier.
It’s a pleasure to be insult by people like you segue, basically couse I didn’t found any reason to do so.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
please Anon, read about that guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Is just an example of what I was saying about number 2, I’m not an specialist and I never meant to seem so. But I know a few of them.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
JB,
I spent over an hour, suffering from toothache into the bargain, meticulously considering and answering your 369. I finished, went to submit, and the screen came up with its “sorry we can’t show you the page” bit. I pressed the green back arrow to recover the text. Nothing. Blank. Sorry. I’m not prepared to spend that time over again trying to reconstruct the reply. Pity. You made interesting, stimulating points, and perhaps my response might have been too.
Re above. Absolutely. Take any one factor out of the general pattern of changing global phenomena and you may find a dispute or disproof. Only a fool would deny that. It’s the entire panorama that’s significant. Let’s illustrate. Suppose we consider the current extinction event on the planet. It would be easy to find any number of specific individual organisms that might or might not be going extinct, and that trained biologists would argue over one way or the other (there’s even a LV list to the effect). Irrelevant. What matters is the aggregate and the trend, which are completely and utterly undeniable for extinction. We are losing biodiversity and natural biomass at a frightening rate.
Sea level. Tell that to Pacific islanders who are already having to be evacuated from their atolls. Not sea level. That may very well not have changed over much. They are being driven off by unstable changing climate patterns. Violent storms. The increase in ferocity of hurricanes in the Carribean and the southern states of the U.S. indicates that these phenomena are far more devastating in creating flood disasters than any measurable rise in sea level.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 am
JB, I could do my own, very small scale, sea level change right here on the central coast of California.
I could easily go back 100 years, and plot the changes year to year. I Have been , in fact, been plotting the changes, year to year, since I’ve lived here. Not because I’m a scientist, as I said above, but because I’m well read, and I
have an overwhelming need to know and understand the world around me.
As long time LVers might be able to assert, this is not limited to Global Warming, but as that is the issue at hand, it’s the one I will stick to.
I read the link you included in your last post. I was not impressed by the study of ONE man. If his conclusions had been those of a large and respected group of scientists in the field of oceanography, then I may have given it more weight.
Even if it had been, though, the satellite pictures and maps don’t lie!
The atoll dwellers, being driven from their homes from ever higher ocean levels don’t lie!
We simply can’t take one man’s word as the holy gospel of global warming.
Your example of an airline pilot, telling passengers they’d have to choose members to throw out the windows (oh! how I wanted to get into the atmospheric catastrophe of opening an airplane window at altitude!)was simply absurd, and hurt your argument more than helped it. Still, your point was made, we have to act, but at what price?
That’s easy.
At any price!
Because the plane which is going to ask you to jettison passengers is the one we’re on right now. The one wasting fossil fuel as if there were enough to last forever, and as if it were doing no harm. The one that is causing almost certainly irrepairable damage to some parts of the ecosystem right now, and has already done in some parts. The one that will leave a more barren and less biodiverse planet to your children and grandchildren.
Alternate fuels are available, clean fuels; solar power, natural gas, wind power…others we don’t don’t even know about yet. It’s time, it’s past time, we were searching as if our very lives depended on it, because they may.
If mine doesn’t, my grand-daughter’s surely will.
BTW, thank you for the compliment (I think it was a compliment).
We get so many spammers at times, that decides fairly quickly, based on things like lack of command of language, that one has run into another spammer. I have to apologize if, indeed, you are who you claim to be.
You know, there are some language translation programs, some are free to download, which might be of benefit to you. Try googling it, and see if such exists for your language to English. I’m betting it does.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
JB,
I’ll see if I can summon up the willpower to reconstruct and add to what segue has just posted. Perhaps when a little water has passed under the bridge and I’m not so mad and frustrated at what happened yesterday.
Sitting in the dentist’s chair this morning, another illustration occurred to me to refute your kind of selective argument. I might go to three dentists on spec. One would swear the only solution was to extract my tooth. The second would say, rubbish, I can save it by a crown. A third could offer to fill it effectively. At a conference they might have treatment of my tooth as a point of total dispute.
However, none of this professional disageement would deny that my tooth was bad and urgently required dealing with.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
JB and all you other doubters and disbelievers,
OK. Here’s a really BIG one to neutralize out all your marginal specialist Norwegian and other scientific sceptics.
“Pickens charmed the blazing blue daylights out of almost everyone at the DNC. He’s an oilman who believes in global warming.” Source Denver Post.
For further info., please Google up *The Pickens Plan*.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Dude. Lots of people believe in global warming…John McCain and Sarah Palin apparently even do…George Bush does, too. My skepticism isn’t based on anything except facts. The facts are there is no proof that any climate change is man-made. Doesn’t it seem supremely self-centered for humans to think in just a few generations of industrialization we can do more damange than eons of majorly destructive natural disasters. We should concern ourselves with things we can control and contribute to: pollution (see China & India) clear cutting rainforests. Are you also scared of genetically engineered food?
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
rushfan,
“Doesn’t it seem supremely self-centered for humans to think in just a few generations of industrialization we can do more damange than eons of majorly destructive natural disasters.”
Are you a scientist???? That is one of the wierdest, most illogical questions I have ever seen or heard on this topic.
Well, here are a few counter questions:
Doesn’t it seem supremely self-centred for humans to have multiplied from a mere 250 million to its current 6.7 billion in just 1000 years? And, if you will, 5.5 billions of those over the period of the industrial revolution? And, I will add, more than half over the last 50 years.
How much total REAL space of the planet does each of those 6.7 billion supremely self-centred human beings (ourselves) take up on average? I’m not talking cosy absurdities like our mere living space and gardens. I mean everything. The land and water space taken up by everything we each of us eat, drink or otherwise consume, wrap things up in, read, wipe our bums on, throw away and collect: also our part of the collective systems of work areas, roads, public spaces, shops, transportation, delivery services, places of entertainment and so on. Just think about it for each one on average and then multiply by 6.7 billion and still growing exponentially. If that doesn’t scare shit out of you the way it scares shit out of me, I would propose you may perhaps benefit from a smidgeon more imagination.
Doesn’t it seem supremely self-centred for humans to consider they could have reduced the natural biomass of the planet by some 30% in the last 50 years? That they could have reduced the former massive extentions of wild rainforests to a fraction of their former areas in less than 100 years? That they might be capable of extinguishing 30% of biodiversity on the planet by the end of the century at the current rate? (A sober estimate. Some place the figure much higher.) Those are not my data, they are agreed by conferences of the world’s foremost and most distinguished biologists (or are they simply supremely self-centred human beings?)
Now let’s examine one or two natural disasters and phenomena.
Krakatoa, perhaps the largest in recorded history. Extinctions. None known? Atmospheric pollution? A year or so, then total recovery. Deforestation? Local islands, shortly recovered.
Biological divesity. Up until the industrial era considered to have grown to its maximum peak in the entire bio-history of the Earth following the last major extinction event, that of the dinosaurs, as everyone knows. There is considered to have been a mini mammalian megafauna extinction event co-inciding with the global dispersal of humans. That was consequent on the discovery of fire as a hunting aid and other developments in hunting techniques.
Extinction. Local extinction happens all the time, but extremely slowly. The natural background rates are calculated in many thousands of years. Broadly speaking too, when no mass extinction events are involved there is usually a continual slight gain from new adaptive speciation. Mass extinction events are violent, abrupt, sudden and pretty universal, not allowing much of the existing life-forms the opportunity to evolve and adapt to the new conditions they create. Major strikes from space are considered to be the major cause. Most biologists consider that growing human intervention on the planet is coming to equal one of these. All the oceans are now affected by our activites, even the deepest trenches. All the land surfaces, even the sterile ice and deserts. The only remaining virgin biocentres are those beneath the ground where we, our exploitation and pollution have not managed to reach.
Well, that’s more than enough.
Personally I don’t give a toss if John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush or any bugger else with power believes in *global warming*. Not if they then do nothing, or start jabbering about conferences to decide what to do in 50 years time. Or say it’s too early yet to tell, or perhaps it’s natural, we must wait and see.
What facts do you and those in my last paragraph want? Like proof? Perhaps some catastrophe so cosmopolitan that everyone will scream “why didn’t THEY do something about it while there was still time.” By All that’s Holy, I hope that doesn’t happen, but fear it will. In that case God (or whatever) help your children and their children’s children, if you have, or plan to have such a succession.
Randall summed it up it on the other site. Something about getting what we’ve asked for.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
How about some actual scientific research on the subject?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/past_decade_is_warmest_in_at_l.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
How about an article which includes scientific research, and a current emergency due to global warming?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jO9eK94TY12mQJSxlF69I9q3L4YwD92VGDT00
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
rushfan:
You’re wrong. We’re able to harm the Planet so much. You cannot deny how we’ve changed the planet: Endless crop fields where once there were forests; Roads cutting habitats from side to side; rivers poisoned with it’s fauna gone; Eeagle spieces extint by high voltage cables or the
blades of wind turbines; overexploitation through fishing… and go on
But there’re really strongest forces in nature than humans. Humankind have an expiraton date. Even if we survive to pollution and overpopulation radiation will kill us in the next massive extintion, when the galactic density wave is crossing us again or when sun is going out of the galactic disc in its eternal oscillatory movement. And live in earth will ALWAYS survive us because we’re not the best prepared specie in there. Indeed, we will be one of the firsts to dessapear.
Talking about that:
One of the weakest points of greenhouse effect is that, theorically, it shouldn’t have that impact in front of other potential causes like solar activity. When I was studing astronomy the teacher gave us a sheet with the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with climate change but I noticed that the infrared strip was almost saturated by the action of greenhouse gasses. Some years leter I heart that global warming simulations were done over a linial regression between the amount of CO2 and increment of temperature. ¡That’s literally saying that you will see the “half less” through one wall than through two! The difference of energy retained by greenhouse gases between now and 100 years ago is really small comparing to the fluctuations of solar activity for example.
But remember, that doesn’t mean Global Warming is wrong. Is just that greenhouse effect gases, if acting, are doing it somehow different to how we figure out or by some way that increases it’s effect and we don’t understand. There’re few undeniable proves about climate change. And must be studied, bassicaly to find the point where we must act.
That’s an example of why politics must let do the scientist their work. if you ask for money to investigate this they will deny it because, according to them, there’s nothing more to say about global warming.
In “A convenience truth for me” Al Gore shows a graphic relating CO2 in athmosfere and temperature. He did harm so much to Global Warming theorist showing that. Because I think not only scientist knows that previous global warmings weren’t caused by CO2 as he’s presuming. What we do know is that when warming the sees release their CO2, and that increese the amount in the atmosphere. Al Gore wanted to make us think that the relation was upside down.
Anon:
Thank you for answering even after such a trouble. My tip: ctrl+C before posting a long text. (I also hope that dentists didn’t dispute that much and healed you quickly.
)
That was a nice illustration, (just missed one saying that tomorrow morning the pain will have gone itself) and that’s how global warming debate should be. But the topic have been manipulated from both sides and it’s difficult to discern the true from the false information. Many people has found a source of money deffending one of them and doesn’t let scientist do that debate in their way. The IPCC has been has proved fraudulent and far to any kind of scientific methodology. And if tomorrow global warming is shown to be wrong trust in science itself will be really endangered because of IPCC lies.
About the pacific islands:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5078/2934/1600/nivel_mar_kiribati.1.jpg
¿Can you mention another one that had to be evacuated but Tuvalu?
Tuvalu is under hard acusations about the reasons they loose their fresh water. It seems that Australian goverment adviced them some time ago that it was about to happen and it had nothing to do with climate change.
Like many other “proofs” I don’t see the prof in there. Nor in increse, if any, of natural dissasters. There’s no serious hipothesis predicting more disasasters. There are lots about the weather “impredectibility” but that doesn’t mean, as many think, that there will be more natural dissasters.
The Pickens Plan is interesting. It seems to be no more than another economical inversion for that guy but, in any case, will reduce the dependence on fosil fuels. I just hope he will consider the ambiental impact before doing it.
segue:
I know the trolls you were talking about, but they just look for rude reactions. If you see any just ignore them.
I’m trying to write better now. But I’m unable to do it well when I’m too tired. And I won’t use any translator. Have you ever tried one? They work for specific words, but it’s imposible to write anything coherent with it.
Have you read about what Nils-Axel Mörner was denouncing? http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
You have pointed so many topics about the abuse of the planet that aren’t related to global warming. Putting all together is a terrible mistake. Global warming is not the reason for taking care of the planet. Is just another topic and, to help the planet, we must understand it the better we can. And maybe the mediatised panic sorrounding global warming will blind ourselves to those other issues.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
JB, I hate to repeat myself, but for you, I will make an exception. Please read the following article, and then tell me that there is no problem with water rising or warming. The article, and associated articles available from this site, have a lot to say regarding the subject.
Are you disregarding my posts because my credentials don’t include grad studies in the sciences? Because much of my science is self-taught, over a period of 25 years? It’s true, my degrees are all in the Arts. But my passions run the gamut. Perhaps you’ve noticed.
http://ap.google.com/article/A…..wD92VGDT00
Read the article. It obviously won’t change your mind. Maybe, though, it will crack it a bit, and some other ideas can wander in. We can only hope.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Rushfan,
“or some other twit who thinks global warming is the biggest issue we face. It’s not. By a long shot.”
Delighted to have such a soaring, profound intellectual analysis by an expert who has clearly studied the subject in great depth and width, and has sufficient confidence to give most of the world’s finest scientific minds the finger they deserve for their calumny. That’s the stuff to give ‘em gal.
I predict. You’ll be standing on some hill near you in a few decades time, looking into a calm sunset as the world carries on in its tranquil, undisturbed climatic and economic way, growing ever safer and more prosperous. And you’ll say, “I told that sadly misled Anon so.” And you’ll tell your children the silly Global Warming fable, and they will stand on that same hill, tell their children, and so it will go on for ever and ever. God Save America and all who sail in her. Amen.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
JB and segue,
JB: I have read what segue recommends and I support her. I am a specialist in mountain botany. All scientists who are specialists have very limited fields. That’s why they need to get together and add up the sum of their observations and predictions for a subject on a global scale with such vast causes and effects in so many different areas. I can tell you that mountain plants are beginning to be overrun rapidly at their lowest elevations because increasing ambient temperatures leading to shorter winters and longer growing periods are allowing more vigorous competitors to extend their vertical distributions. Long term studies with careful data have been provided from particular study areas, such as Norway.
I read and absorb what I can of general information, and what I have time for. I live in Chile. We are losing 90% or so of our glaciers at an alarming rate. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up and calving, sometimes as gigantic floating, melting islands. If not through sudden, increased heat, could you please explain what? As a result of warmer waters, sharks are now at the very borders of Antarctic boundaries and are likely to enter and prey on defenceless sea-life there shortly. The penguin population is said to have diminished by 60% in 30-odd years.
Melting ice is not only a problem in the extreme south. There is worry over fresh water supplies for humans as well as vital Amazon headwaters in the central Andes due to the disappearance of glaciers in Ecuador and Peru. This will inevitably also affect the flora there of interest to ourselves shortly, if not already.
I’m not making all this up. Ask rushfan to provide you with a similar thoughtful profile of the scientific information that enables her to dismiss a leader who would take global warming seriously as a “twit”. I’m afraid that is the level of all too many who dismiss the problem. They don’t really know anything about it. They don’t really want to know anything about it. They won’t believe until or unless it actually starts to happen and affect them. They look for any scientist who doubts or dismisses such human effects on the planet, rather than considering the numbers, experience and qualifications of those who don’t. Anyone who presents a view opposite to their own is either an honestly misled sucker (as I suppose they might categorise me) or cynically making money or political capital of a phoney issue. Lovelock says it all reminds him so frighteningly of the way the majority didn’t want to see Hitler coming, and found any reason to deny his threat, which would overturn their relatively comfortable, peaceful lives. It did.
Some more general scientists, the likes of James Lovelock, and even some highly esteemed specialists, for example, E. O. Wilson have taken the trouble to co-ordinate all this mass of separate, precise data and publish it as a readable overview. Climate change is not necessarily the sole focus, but it is always central.
Lovelock points out that the biosphere is an integrated self-balancing mechanism that has built up gradually over a few billion years. It has developed the ability to auto-compensate when things go wrong. Much the equivalent to the way our healthy bodies use their natural defences when we are sick. That’s why things look to us on the surface to be changing so relatively little … so far. But climatic and biological scientists are like the medical profession. They can see many worrying indicators of the onset of sickness that are hidden from the non-specialist. I mean non-specialist people whose main preoccupations are keeping their taxes low, the price of fuel for their vehicles, inflation, fiscal economics, the war in Iraq, who will be the next U.S. president, and so on. These scientists are trying to warn us that any body, be it human, be it the planet, has a limited capacity to fight sickness. That if sickness finally overcomes all its defences, it will simply die. Full stop.
As a general observation, the world temperature graph over recent time exactly matches the onset and increase of human industrialisation. So that’s simply all down to omnipotent natural causes? Pure co-incidence it’s actually happening right now? Nothing to do with feeble little humanity. Co-incidence? Everything a co-incidence? Well, if you want to believe that, who can stop you? Unless the Earth loses its astonishingly tolerant and forgiving capacity to adapt and heal, and turns round and bites back savagely. Then perhaps you may recall these words, but a bit too late.
People have now been warned sufficiently to build a house of bricks, not of straw or sticks. Why should I care if Big Bad Wolf comes and blows it down and eats them? Why do I get so consumed by frustrated anger. Because I live in that same house too, and will suffer the same fate, willy nilly. Because everything with meaning for me lives in that house. That’s why.
I have a ghastly suspicion that for Americans, at least, this is to a degree, perhaps a very large degree, a political issue. If so, and I still hope not, that would be totally and utterly insane. Sorry I use the word *insane* advisedly and repeat, insane. (I may comment more on this in another posting.) Short of some raving lunatic of a psychopathic dictator, I would and now do vote for almost anyone I think takes the threat seriously and looks prepared to take some action, or might at least exert political pressure. I will override most of my usual political *sine qua nons* to that effect. My major priority is simple. I want a planet to live on for whatever time I have left, and for my descendants to live on for all their natural spans.
JB, you are right, of course. One day the sun will expand before it expires and burn out the Earth. Life will have died out before then, even if not from other causes. But life is tough, given a chance. One day as an individual I must also die. But I want that day to be as far off as possible. I want to go on living this wonderful life as long as I can, and I want our planet to go on hosting us and the rest of life in all its diversity for as long as it can, not to be cut off short because we couldn’t be bothered.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:36 am
segue:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jO9eK94TY12mQJSxlF69I9q3L4YwD92VGDT00
Sorry I didn’t saw it the fisrt time. I have just read it, and yes. That is one of the undeniable truths about global warming. Except for we don’t now if that also happened before but that’s not any reason to stop us worry about what is up there.
Some years ago there was also a huge iceberg released from Antartica. It was travelling across the sea till, unfortunately, retourned to the Ross Ice shelf, killing most of penguins colonies near mount Kelvin. It was luck, but it finally returned to Antartica without melting.
In any case. ¿Which relationship do you see between ice melting and see level?
That one:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/past_decade_is_warmest_in_at_l.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
is not a hoax, but it’s using an incorrect source. See that link for further information (is the first one I’ve found googling it, but I think that explain the issue)
http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/cycle23/warming.htm
Anon:
About inland glaciers: I don’t know much exept they’re really melting so quick last decade, and maybe Perito Moreno is on of the hardest examples. But even in that, some people claim to be a naural process due to the ending of the last ice age. I don’t finish to swallow that, but it might be considered.
Same about mountain habitats. But the way to study that fenomena is through scientist reserch. Please Anon, I apreciate your work, try to isolate the causes of biological loose, if necesary under lab conditions. Consider as you knew nothing about global warming and build possible causes. You know what I’m talking about.
When you mentioned sun in the last paragraph: I wasn’t talking about that long. I was talking about the natural great extintions that occur periodically. But I didn’t mean to say that. I wanted to point that, if global warming is true we will be one of the first spicies to fall because we deppend so much on natural resources. That mean two things:
1st: we must take care with global warming even if we don’t care about nature because our existence go with it.
2n: in anycase we won’t deathly harm nature. It will last few million years to regain it’s explendor.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve never discredit nobody for their studies if their resonings are right. But I also want you to do the same. Couse I don’t see in that “marginal specialist Norwegian” atribute a respectfull treatment.
You’re the “goodies”,undoubtedly. The ones who care about the future. Even more, the ones who “care” about anything else that yourselves (even mentioning so much your offspring) .But that doesn’t mean you’re right. Don’t deffend global warming just because is another “fight” against the powerfull ones. This time you can be wrong, and will damage the ecological movement and pervert the fighting will of so many.
If you’re the goodies, act as the goodies and don’t use bad tricks. I think I’ve been showing my hands with arguments and not discredit.
Anon, if you understand spanish I would like you to read this:
http://espaidual.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/mentidas-de-bajo-presupuesto/
Have nothing to do with climate change but is an example I found about how a good cause can become a lie.
I will wait for answers
PD: please, another time: Tell me about another atoll that had to be evacuated but Tuvalu. And if someone missed it, there it comes another time:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5078/2934/1600/nivel_mar_kiribati.1.jpg here are that sattelite evidences you’re talking about. Why don’t you take a look before talking about it?
September 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
JB, you know I was all ready to to give you an honest, well thought out answer.
I had it written.
I had links to articles to back up my contentions.
Then I stopped, and I sighed, and I realized that you don’t want honest, well thought out answers. You don’t want proofs which go against your own stance. No matter what Anon or I bring to the table, you offer the same arguments again and again, and belittle my own.
Fine. I’m no scientist. I was upfront about that from the start.
I’m out.
Obviously, you don’t consider me worthy of being a member of this discussion.
Ergo, I’m gone.
Anon, have fun with JB.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
380. segue – September 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
JB, I hate to repeat myself, but for you, I will make an exception. Please read the following article, and then tell me that there is no problem with water rising or warming.
——–
that’s what I was asking.
That article talks about a huge iceberg withholding lots of CO2 in it’s permafrost that will be released if melting. That CO2 is enough to be considered as a new big contribution to global warming.
But what relationship is between that and water rising?
I’m sorry ¿is that article?:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jO9eK94TY12mQJSxlF69I9q3L4YwD92VGDT00
because maybe you were talking about another one.
Don’t get offended if I don’t panic as much as you about global warming. That doesn’t mean I’m not worried about it. A scientist may never deny the truth but may also never get panic by it. Do you imagine a general running away every time he sees an enemy army? so, why a the scientist comunity may act as a fool blinded by panic when facing a hard issue?
I don’t like you to surrender because I agree in most of what you’re talking about and I maybe believe in the same values. Give up that time if you want but please don’t do it so often. Cover your ears is not carring you to anywhere.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
JB and segue,
I’ve been working on a reply (to JB), but other priorities claimed my attention for much of today until now. I have only fully written out the first point, but it is so germane to what has just been discussed that I had better post it immediately and continue working later on my other answers or retorts:
“Don’t get offended if I don’t panic as much as you about global warming. That doesn’t mean I’m not worried about it. A scientist may never deny the truth but may also never get panic by it. Do you imagine a general running away every time he sees an enemy army? so, why a the scientist comunity may act as a fool blinded by panic when facing a hard issue?”
That smug argument is absolutely absurd and in no way represents the attitude either of segue or myself. In fact it comes close to insulting us, even though that was not your intention. However, it certainly patronises us. You have totally confused *panic* with *urgency*.
Let’s turn around your metaphor as an illustration. The general stands on a hill while his troops are bathing in the sea. All the weapons are locked away. They do not know or care about danger at that moment and are completely unprepared for battle. He sees an enemy army. His soldiers are splashing and shouting, having fun, making a lot of noise and not taking any notice of him. He shouts and warns them. Calls them to immediate action. Warns with terrible urgency of their mortal danger. If necessary he tries to frighten them a bit to help save their lives. Is that running away? Is that a fool blinded by panic? What a ridiculous comparison.
It seems segue and I fear a greater, stronger and more immediate danger in climate change than you do, hence our urgency. What makes you so sure you are right and we are wrong? If so, by what evidence? You are using scientific practice to attack our position. You have correctly said science cannot be sure without evidence. So where is your evidence that we are not in immediate danger from climate change: a sudden and disastrous switch from the limits of stability to total instability (catastrophe theory, I believe)? Supposing you are wrong and we are right?
Let me finish this point by suggesting someone had told the general an enemy army was coming. But they could not tell him how far away it was or how big and strong. Should he relax and tell his soldiers to carry on bathing and not prepare in a hurry because there was no immediate danger? Or should he be intelligent and work to the possibility that they might be very close indeed and very strong? What would you do if you were that general?
Please observe that I am using conditional words like *fear* (not *know*), *supposing* and *possibility* (not *certainty*) all the time.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
To me, it comes down to not whether there is global warming or not but what’s being done about it. Worst case scenario we’re wrong and global warming won’t claim our existance in half a century. So what? In the panic, we’ve managed to reduce emissions, reduce dependency on oil, and other great things that help the environment. I kid my parents about buying a hybrid SUV (it just cancels itself out, Dad), but really the gas mileage might not be better, but at least their cutting back on pollution (I think?). Why are we all uppity about whether it’s really bad, bad, or just an annoying issue? Let’s just DO great things for the environment because we’ve been abusing it long enough.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Cedestra,
You’ve really hit the nail on the head by presenting whole issue the way I see it lined up in short and sweet everyday terms. Well almost.
I’d reserve the phrase *Worst case scenario* for what climatic instabilty at its worst might do to us!
I entirely agree with JB (who doesn’t seem to register my agreement) that panic is inappropriate. In fact panic is never appropriate to any situation, least of all an emergency. It fogs and confuses the mind, blocking the chance for clear, decisive and appropriate action.
A Devil’s Advocate would also claim that action to anticipate the more extreme possibilities of climate change could or would involve a negative disruption of our existing economic systems and present way of life. My answer: that may well be inevitable to some degree, if such action is to be effective (if not effective, why bother at all?). The challenge facing us is to make that disruption minimal or even turn it to positive economic advantage.
If a large rock suspended above your (imaginary) house LOOKED as if it might dislodge and smash down on you at any time, would you cheerily stay where you were because it would be costly and uncomfortable to move, and besides, the rock might not fall down after all?
It seems I can present this sort of metaphor until the cows come home, but it doesn’t seem to make the slightest impression. I find the rigid, inflexible mindset of so many educated and intelligent fellow-humans as scary as the potential threat of changing climate itself.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
JB, (383),
“About inland glaciers: I don’t know much exept they’re really melting so quick last decade, and maybe Perito Moreno is on of the hardest examples. But even in that, some people claim to be a naural process due to the ending of the last ice age. I don’t finish to swallow that, but it might be considered.”
The sudden recent melting of glaciers began at more or less at the same *nanosecond* in geological time as the Industrial Revolution, and has since accelerated and expanded at an equivalent rate to recent human population increases and industrial activity. You are telling me some people, however, claim this is the end of the last ice age and nothing to do with human civilization? What people? Who are they? Scientists? Are they academic glaciologists and specialised climatologists whose careers have been devoted to those studies? If not, would you take an opinion on a complicated disease seriously from someone who had not even studied medicine, or perhaps even from a qualified doctor who had no experience of that particular type of disease? Whoever these people are, I would like you to give me their names, qualifications and the study programmes on which they base that claim. Also any papers they may have published containing substantiating or supportive data. Without all that, I’m afraid I react to your remark in exactly the same way as you react to my example of alpine plants in Norway (see my next posting), but I believe with far more justification. Without all that, your comment is quite pointless. You might have heard it as a conversation between two bricklayers drinking beer in a public house!
Don’t get offended! It is you who is insisting on utter and precise science or nothing.
By the way, JB, I’ve told you and everybody who is reading this of my qualification. I am a semi-retired taxonomic botanist specialising in certain aspects of the Andean flora, but with much wider general botanical and ecological interests. I publish scientific papers and contribute to national floras and other serious specialised literature.
segue has also openly profiled herself and her interests.
You are under no obligation of course, it’s your own private life and free decision, but it might make for a fairer debate if you were willing to presnt similar information about yourself: Your career, any particular relevant speciality, your stage in life (early, middle, late career), anything elkse about yourself relating to this topic.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:25 am
JB, (383),
“Same about mountain habitats. But the way to study that fenomena is through scientist reserch. Please Anon, I apreciate your work, try to isolate the causes of biological loose, if necesary under lab conditions. Consider as you knew nothing about global warming and build possible causes. You know what I’m talking about.”
“Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve never discredit nobody for their studies if their resonings are right. But I also want you to do the same. Couse I don’t see in that “marginal specialist Norwegian” atribute a respectfull treatment.”
I’m sorry, but I hardly have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I realise English is not an easy language for you to comprehend and convey complex ideas in a discussion like this. Your attempts of themselves are certainly considerable and brave. However, I advise you that you appear to be completely (yes completely) misunderstanding much of what I am saying, but acting as though you completely (yes completely) understand. This is an unintentional form of arragance and is creating total confusion which is not helpful to you, to me, or to anyone reading this post. I suggest you consider carefully whether you are capable of contributing positively rather than just wasting people’s valuable time trying to explain for a second time what they have already clearly expressed. This is not a criticism of your intelligence or basic ability, merely questioning whether you can in fact manage to communicate efficiently at this level in English. After all, you are not slow or charitable in questioning other’s scientific credentials or abilities in exactly the same way.
Here (again) is what I wrote about Norwegian alpine plant ecology:
“Long term studies with careful data have been provided from particular study areas, such as Norway.”
If you want exact scientific citations, I’m sorry, I am not going to play that game here. This is an open website and my main aim is to try to enlighten and if possible convince the non-specialised public in any way I may be able. If I start up that clever-clever academic minutiae jargon here with you or anyone else, people I hope would read this will quite naturally turn away. I’ll do that citation stuff in scientific papers and publications, where it belongs and is appropriate.
The Norwegian plant study was a passing reference to a specific case I happen to know. I used it as an example of the need to accumulate hundreds or thousands of similar small, specialised pieces of precise and careful data to build up a larger global picture. If that isn’t using precise scientific data to construct an accurate model, what is?
I did not indicate that on its own it was *proof* of *global warming*. If that’s what you understood then you really are wasting my time. Imagine it as one tiny jigsaw piece. That isn’t the picture. But if you have hundreds or thousands more pieces like it, just as carefully shaped, and they all fit perfectly together, then you will end up with a complete jigsaw puzzle and a picture. You will even begin to see and be able to visualise the picture once you have enough of those pieces fixed together.
Apropos. I know of some of the ecological scientists who conducted that Norway study. They are among the most respected in Europe.
So what the hell relevance have field observations got to do with lab studies? Can you please tell me how to *lab study* for years on end the outdoor vegetation cover of a mountain top in a lab – for all that’s Holy? If you are trying to tell me that field studies done by some of the best and most respected scientific brains have less relevance than controlled lab studies, above all when studying climate, then I’m at a total loss for further words here …
September 5th, 2008 at 12:34 am
JB, (383),
“When you mentioned sun in the last paragraph: I wasn’t talking about that long. I was talking about the natural great extintions that occur periodically. But I didn’t mean to say that. I wanted to point that, if global warming is true we will be one of the first spicies to fall because we deppend so much on natural resources. That mean two things:
1st: we must take care with global warming even if we don’t care about nature because our existence go with it.
2n: in anycase we won’t deathly harm nature. It will last few million years to regain it’s explendor.”
Well that’s good. We are in total and complete agreement here. Why would we risk reducing our presenbt (still) miraculous biodiversity to a basic mass extinction *pioneer* level where it might take anything from several millions or tens of millions of years to recover? Is that what we want as our legacy for the planet?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:19 am
JB, (383), Finally,
“You’re the “goodies”,undoubtedly. The ones who care about the future. Even more, the ones who “care” about anything else that yourselves (even mentioning so much your offspring) .But that doesn’t mean you’re right. Don’t deffend global warming just because is another “fight” against the powerfull ones. This time you can be wrong, and will damage the ecological movement and pervert the fighting will of so many.
If you’re the goodies, act as the goodies and don’t use bad tricks. I think I’ve been showing my hands with arguments and not discredit.”
You accuse me of defending climate change as a tactic to attack the economic and political power-materialists who are dismembering this planet, to the detriment of the planet itself, as well as destroying our own collective spirituality and natural empathy. Good Grief, what will you make up next? More absolute nonsense and misrepresentation of my position.
That aspect certainly cannot be ignored, since it is so obviously one of the fundamental causes of the problem we are facing. But if attacking others were the reason behind my concern and argument, I would be riding a political hobbyhorse and my arguments would have no objective validity whatever. All I can say is that if you believe that, then once again I have to assume it’s because of your interpretation and not my explanation.
I am perfectly prepared to attack the *Midas Virus*, as I would define such appalling brain-dead but materialistically powerful philisitinism. But that would be as a purely personal offensive which has nothing to do with providing as objective a case for climate change as possible, and it would be completely apart.
You accuse me of making dogmatic statements in support of climate change which will endanger the ecology movement. Wow, that’s breathtaking! Now I can indeed clearly state you have failed to read and understand my text. Even if English is clearly not your first language, that untruth must still be challenged and corrected.
As I have already pointed out, not once have I ever claimed climate change (1) is a totally proven fact (2) is going to have any certain, known effect, or (3) is beyond all doubt the symptom or cause of any individual current problem. All my statements are carefully qualified as possibilities or probabilities based on accumulated evidence from many and different sources. I always try to express honest doubt, even though that risks weakening an argument in the eyes of opponents or the uncommitted. Not once have I claimed decisive proof for climate and predicted “This will happen”. If you can find a closed-minded statement of that kind anywhere among my postings, please quote it. For Pity’s Sake, I’m a scientist! Are you accusing me of not knowing or using basic, fundamental scientific procedures????
You look here too, JB. I’m the one who’s all too aware of the damage done by foolish earlier environmentalists in wrongly forecasting exact dates when global warming *Armageddon* would arrive. That has provided magnificent free ammunition for opponents which still forms one of their equally foolish armament aginst open-mindedness and those who express alternative likely possibilities. People without a shred of logic in their brains are now able to claim with superiority that because there was no catastrophe around the year 2000, as some had predicted in the 1970s, there will never be any catastrophe. (Which is like a European of the time believing that if Hitler hadn’t begun warfare in 1939, he never would!) I understand why ecologists made those predictions. Like our general of a few posts back, they wanted to shock people into action. Unfortunately that failed dismally, and what is worst, the whole intention backfired. So don’t you dare accuse me of the same error.
Now read everyone here who will not accept global warming or climate change or whatever you like to call it. Even those who admit it, but deny it has anything to do with human activity. Start adding up how many of those have closed their minds to the remotest possibility that they might be wrong, and what it would mean if they were. Notice how many commentators with fewer scientific credentials between the lot of them than I have *know* what is happening for sure. Now if that doesn’t scare you …
And pardon me, my friend, what is all this shit about *bad tricks*. With friends like you, who needs enemies?, as they say.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Anon:
Do you mind if we slow down the feedback?
At this rate we are going to get tired.
I’m loosing to many time but I still want to follow it.
Every time I read you I find myself closer to your position.
I will start by presenting myself as you asked. I’m finisthing my studies on physics in the University of Barcelona. Next year I’m starting a Master course in Theorical Physics or Material Engeniering and Nanotechnology. As I already said, it has little to do with climate change but what I know is how a scientific study shall be. And I miss some rigour in what is said about global warming. I will repeat again, somehow I belive in global warming but my scepticism need to fill some gaps before accepting it as a truth.
let me start with 386 (what is for me the hard point):
When I’m talking about panic is because when I asked: “at what price” segue answered without doubting: “at anyprice”.
Let me put two known examples:
1st: Biodiesel:
It’s said that this new source of energy is cleaner than fossil ones. I don’t think so. And in any case I think without global warming it’s exploitation would have never started. That mean that global warming was used as propaganda for that industry, and the world fell in it. The consequences are clear. Today poornes in the thirth world have been increased thanks to biodiesel exploitatiion. Today is more important to feed occidental cars than Brazilian childs. But we accept that situation because global warming must be fought at “any price”.
2n: 0,7% to Kyoto’s 1%:
I’m unable to find it again right now, I will try it agin later. But some time ago I found a news in a paper (a normal paper, if you ask) that shocked me: It seems that the government of my country started to invest a part of the 0,7% (0,7% of the GDP promised to the development of the thirth world) to cover the Kyoto’s 1%. ¿Don’t you find it a desperate solution? The worst was the naturalness shown by the media and society to that. Seemed like: “ok, that’s normal. For stop global warming dammage us tomorrow we must kill some thousands of the weakest today because we may fought it at any price”.
I really hate to say that because I know is one of the deniers argument: But that position remember so much to eugenics and nazism.
That’s why I say that “at any price” is a panic reaction more than urgent. We can’t stop being humans due to the urgency of the climate change.
As you said, I can’t deny Global Warming by science. But I don’t want to, and I’m not trying to do so. I’m just trying to find the truth among the lies. I believe that there’s something behind that, even that Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect may be the causes. But, as I started the discusion, some people are making us believe in lies for their benefit and damaging not just environmentalists work but also science as a whole.
There is also another reason to give rigour it’s importance. Global Warming is said to be impossible to be stop by just reducing CO2 emissions. That mean that someday we will have to make some “active” actions in a global level. And those actions can be really dangerous if we don’t know how global warming works and which is the best point to attack it.
I will try to talk about the other comments on Monday
greetings,
September 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
JB,
Take your time. You asked me to reply. I did so straight away because otherwise it will simply lose priority. I am not getting enough work done as it is.
When you take your time, PLEASE try to understand what I am saying carefully and don’t lecture me about some absurd point I have not made, or position I do not adopt. Or make me repeat again what I have already stated.
I agree with you entirely about biofuel. So, I think you will find, do many or most of those who urge action about atmospheric pollution. It’s not only a potential disaster for the world foodstock situation, but also for the natural environment. The only minor advantage would be less dependance on fossil fuels and their volatile provider nations. The only major advantage huge profits for greedy industrialists. Other sources of energy are needed and exist.
The creation of biofuel from any kind of suitable waste product should, however, be seriously considered, provided it is indeed economical.
You are of course correct in many of your following points. Those who cynically see profit in any possibility will adopt it for that reason alone. They are not the genuine experts and scientific prophets who advise us of the actual terrible risk we might be facing.
Also, as you say, the whole situation is extraordinarily complex and confusing. It does not just hang on one factor, atmospheric pollution. If it did we might be able to address it rather as we addressed the fluorocarbon situation, even though it would still be infinitely more difficult than that. The problem lies in our knowing or understanding all the causes and their interactions. Therefore, because we cannot make up our minds what might be the correct action and are scared of taking the wrong one, we are doing practically nothing. The planet won’t wait meanwhile until we do decide. Perhaps there is nothing we can do. It may simply be that human civilisation has passed beyond the capacity of the planet to carry us. In that case we had better make the most of life while we can.
But under any cirumstances it seems to me there are certain obvious, sensible things we can and should do collectively and individually. One of those is to slow down and control our depredation of the natural world. Another is to reduce all pollution and waste to a practical minimum. A third is to develop as a matter of urgency clean and renewable sources of energy that do not themselves create serious collateral damage.
These actions should not be left to one or two individuals. They should be devised and promoted by national and international bodies, and be maximised by subsidies and incentives if necessary.
Would we as a world community just sit and wring our hands or do nothing the way we are now and do next to nothing if we were about to be invaded from space? The threat may be as serious.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
JB,
“I predict that in 10 years, Global Warming will be laughed at as a fad of the 2000s.”
That statement is taken from the heading introduction. It is by someone who does not accept the proposition. Please note the certain, unqualified statement “WILL be laughed at”. Not “MAY be laughed at”, which is what I (as a cautious and aware scientist) would write, but “WILL be laughed at”. Not the slightest doubt expressed. For a reason which I shall explain briefly sometime within the next day or so, I’m not prepared to waste more time at this site. That will be my final post here.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I hope I’m not going to steal your thunder Anon dearest, but here and now seems a good time to announce my retirement from Listverse. The infatuation is over. I suspect a few of my reasons are generally similar to yours.
1) Disregard for science
2) Plagiarism and hypocrisy
3) Selfish management
The dumbing down of and disregard for good science is evident here on this list, which is why I’m commenting here (and to add my dissent to that of Anon’s). Partly it is due to the management style described in my third point (below) but mostly it can be directly related to the personal views of the site creator, jfrater. Someone who says this about global warming (and picking the term ‘global warming’ instead of the more accurate ‘global climate change’) can’t possibly be considered to be scientifically astute or of a disposition to foster critical discussion:
Global Warming seems to be in the main stream media every day now. Despite the threats of melting ice shelves resulting in mass flooding, and temperatures that will destroy the earth environment as we know it, the BBC reports that we have had 10 years of cooling. Despite this, the debate rages. No one can dispute that Global Warming has produced a worldwide market for scientists and apologists that will lose a lot of money if Global Warming is found to not be true; the question is: is Global Warming Real or is it a myth being perpetuated by supporters of money swallowing policies such as the Kyoto Protocol and media giants?
My answer is that we have not had sufficient time to truly gauge whether we are in a warming period. It was not so many years ago that the MSM and Scientists were warning us of an up and coming ice age – now we are spending a LOT of money every year for people who claim we are in fact heating our planet. The biggest concern to me is that so many people now rely on global warming to keep their jobs, that they may be too biased to give us an honest view. I predict that in 10 years, Global Warming will be laughed at as a fad of the 2000s.
In addition to the points I made above, I’m concerned that, here on this Your View, jfrater is trying to pander to the views of the nation that contributes the most traffic (and thus, revenue) to Listverse – the United States. This is someone who goes against the accepted spelling style of both his native country (New Zealand) and his sometime place of residence (the United Kingdom) in order to make things ‘easier’ for American English readers. Someone who decides to create a cookbook of user-contributed recipes and expects everyone outside of the US to convert measurements to Imperial.
Secondly – how many of you regular readers looked at the Fascinating Facts About Egypt list that was published recently? Did you notice that jfrater belatedly added some token references (names, no links) to the bottom of the list? Why? Because most of his facts were taken, verbatim, from other websites, which was pointed out in the comments (by myself, using a different nick of ‘nevermind’). From the Submission page:
If you have written an original list and want to see it on the front page of the List Universe…
You can include text quoted from Wikipedia or other open source documents, but please tell me if you have done so…
Either plagiarism is ok if your name is jfrater, the rules don’t apply to jfrater, he thinks we’re too dumb to notice plagiarism, and/or he didn’t think anyone would call him out on it. He was mostly right on the last one. How many of you responded to the comments I made about the content of the list? Of course, you would have had to do so before those comments were DELETED.
The third and biggest thing that deters me from Listverse is how the site is currently being run. Listverse, despite essentially being a blog, seems determined not to participate in the blogosphere. The majority of the site’s popularity is due to jfrater’s assiduous submission of each entry to social networking sites such as Technorati, Digg, and Reddit (you can verify this for yourself by searching for his profile name of wraithx on each of these sites), where they are voted for, upmodded, and generally popularized (standing on their individual merit) by bloggers, which is what brings new visitors to the site. While Listverse benefits greatly (more traffic = more ad revenue for jfrater) from the social networking systems built to explore and share the blogosphere with others – it does not contribute anything besides what makes the site popular, which is content.
Why do I say Listverse doesn’t contribute to the blogosphere? Think about it. Does Listverse ever link to other blogs? Except for the rarely updated Hotlinks page, no. Does it have a blogroll? No. Does it allow commenters to include links? Not easily. Does it allow commenter to include signatures, which may or may not contain a link to their own site? No. How often does Listverse reference anything besides Wikipedia and Youtube in each list? Not often (unless it’s Amazon, where jfrater gets a cut if you buy something linked to from here). Is Listverse’s attention-seeking management style going to backfire on it eventually? I suspect so.
You can see an example of Listverse’s selfish management style on the Commenting FAQ page, I quote it here:
“5. Can I use a signature?
No. Do not put signatures at the end of your comments – we can see from the comment what your username is and we don’t allow readers to use the comments for advertising. Furthermore, links posted in comments are not indexed by Google or other search engines so you can’t improve your site rank by doing this.”
A fourth (and lesser) reason why I’m saying goodbye to this place is the growing list of sycophants here. You know who you are.
I apologise for any formatting errors (I wrote this offline in order to retain a copy – I’ll also be taking a screenshot and posting it elsewhere if deleted). Please don’t bother trying to provoke me into replying to any arguments against my point. I may read them, but I will not be commenting in future. Goodbye all.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:26 am
396. Tempyra, I do hope you will be reading this post, because I want you to know that I, for one (among many) will miss your intellect, your wit, your always useful posts on any and every list.
Besides that, I have come to like, and admire, you.
There are few enough people I admire, to lose one is a dreadful thing.
That being said, because I admire your intellect, I also have to honor your decision, even though I wish it were otherwise.
Good-bye, Tempyra, and good luck, and please remember your absence will be mourned.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Tempyra:
As someone who has been reading this site for a long time I can now say (since you are in fact leaving) Good riddance, you spoiled self important child.
I have never seen anyone so blatantly pompous in my life. Your inability to see past the end of your nose over and over again, in the comments and in forums, has shocked me continuously for some time now.
Take your upity, pedantic, pretentious attitude with you and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I have to say that I am incredibly surprised by the fact that two of our regular readers and commenters are leaving the site – presumably because I don’t accept a particular view of science. I don’t intend to delete either of the comments and I will address Tempyra’s one here:
Tempyra: why does one have to believe in global warming in order to foster debate? I believe many scientific propositions but I am always open to debate and willing to change my mind if needs be.
As for pandering to Americans – 85% of the people here are American – I happen to like Americans and this site is clearly catering to that market – because it is the majority market. I use American spelling because of my experiences in software development in which I received many “you made a spelling error” emails in software I released with standard English spelling. It reduces my workload if I use American spelling.
The same is true of the cookbook – the software I am using to put it together is American and it requires that I add everything in imperial – as most people sending in recipes are in the US, they are using imperial anyway. By asking for metric or imperial, I have to do the translation and I was (again) trying to reduce the workload it would create. Do remember that I am working on all this stuff alone (with the exception of administration of the forums and comments here).
As for your point about the site being a blog – it uses blog software but I try to run the site as if it were not a blog. That is my personal choice and I have no obligation to do anything that others consider requirements for having a website.
Linking to other sites: the hotlinks page is using the blogroll functionality of wordpress. I am not sure why you are offended that I am not calling it a blogroll or that you think I am unethical for not having a constant unchanging list of other people’s blogs. Why exactly should I? This is my site and I am free to do whatever I like with it.
As for the wikipedia issue – I ask people to let me know so that I can attribute the text and put the list under the GPL. One the Egyptian list I neglected to note two of the sources until you reminded me (under a different username for some reason).
Tempyra, this site is costing nearly $1,000 a month to run. Should I remove the ads and Amazon links and charge people here so that I can afford the site? Yes – I make a cut from Amazon when people buy books from the lists – and it usually comes to about $50 a month. That certainly helps pay the hosting costs and short of charging users I see no other way to cover those costs.
You have a blog of your own so you should know that wordpress automatically changes links in comments to stop google ranking them – and the reason? It stops spam. You can see on many blogs that when signatures are allowed, people make comments for no reason other than to advertise their site. I do not want the comments here to be filled with comments that make no contribution. For the record, even with that policy in place here, we have had 42,132 spam comments. We have a total of 88 thousand legit comments. Just imagine what the comments would look like here if we increased them by 50% with junk messages. Hardly pleasant.
I would like to also say that I do submit lists to reddit – a large number of which have been very popular – that is a contribution to reddit. I don’t submit links to Digg – though I used to at the outset of the site. I also don’t contribute links to anywhere else anymore – just reddit – which happens to be the social networking site I like the most and the one that I comment on regularly.
I do not accept your accusations especially when ultimately the site is mine to do with as I please. I like to think that I do things for the benefit of everyone here. In fact, a Canadian company recently offered me a considerable sum of money to buy the site. I turned them down because I love the site and the people here and am not willing to sell it out.
Finally, I have enjoyed many of your comments and think it is a shame you are leaving. But the choice is yours and so I say, goodbye.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Tempyra I have many problems with what you said but I don’t have time to address them all. So I’m going to say that my biggest problem was when you attack Jamie’s way of spelling. Who the fuck cares how he spells? Honestly, If I decided that I was going to spell like a New Zealander would I be going against my country? If my target audience (or the majority readers) was New Zealand then yeah I think I would spell to make it easier on them. He is doing the same thing. The majority of the readers are from the US and so he makes it an easier read on us.
Last note: I agree with what Sb said, GET OVER YOURSELF and thank you for leaving.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Tempyra: Way to have a hissy fit. Jamie does not run his web-site the way you would like. Well damn, isn’t that just too bad? Why should the owner of the site not be allowed to voice his opinion? He and I have disagreed often, sometimes my point of view prevails, sometimes (read often) not. We’re grown-ups Tempyra, we don’t need to agree to be friends.
What is wrong with revenue and promoting your web site? Without revenue Jamie would not have the time required to administer and contribute to this site. For goodness sakes I registered at Ebaums so I could vote when this site is submitted. Do you not want it to be successful? Do you not wish Jamie prosperity? Holy Sour Grapes Batman.
The only point I will agree on is the cut and paste factor from Wiki. Jamie does pay a license fee to use wiki material but in my opinion if it is a direct quote (ie cut and paste) it should be in quotes and attributed where it is used. But that is a personal feeling, not a legal issue, as I said the fee is paid. *All you list writers take note*
Tempyra in case you didn’t notice this is after all a list site. It’s name implies information culled from elsewhere and put in some sort of logical order. Geez.
Have a good life.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
JB, you’re not a scientist. You aren’t even out of school. You, my dear child, are an undergrad.
I admitted upfront that I wasn’t a scientist, that I was merely well read. I have been reading the sciences for more than 25 years. More than 30 years. And I don’t mean perusing pop-lit science, either. I mean reading real science, by real scientists, for real scientists.
Neurology, Anatomy, Biology, Oceanography, Quantum Physics, Geology, Geophysics, Evolution, Biology.
What, exactly, is it that an undergrad has over someone who has been studying the sciences longer than you have been alive?
Nothing!
September 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Mom424 hit it right on the head. The two words that come most readily to mind are “hissy fit.” I also disagree that there is a disregard for science on this site. Being something of a scientist myself, if such were the case I would have abandoned this site long ago. Certain *persons* may seem to disregard science, but the site as a whole is neutral, and where scientific matters are presented, by and large they are represented accurately.
Tempyra, we’ve never had an exchange before, so I can’t really say one way or another whether I will miss you, but rest assured that this site will not collapse in your absence. I’m interested to see whether or not your grudge will last much longer than a few days. Once you cool down, I wouldn’t be the least surprised if you came back under a different nickname. We’ll see how that pans out.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Tempyra what is it?? PMT. your laughable. Great site Jamie keep up the good work. I see how much work Jamie puts into this site!
September 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
One *last post* for any of you doubters or disbelievers who are actually open-minded enough to take evidence into account.
Currently, there are some 1000 tropical storms per annum. Of these, some two thirds (i.e. ca 650) convert to what are variously known a cyclones, typhoons or, as most familiar to Americans, hurricanes of various strengths.
Accurate global records of these exist from the beginning of the last century. As is to be expected, considerable fluctuation in quantity takes place from year to year. Strangely enough, extremes are not essentially tied to El Niño or La Niña events, as might be supposed, although low numbers do seem to show some relation to El Niños, and highs to La Niñas. However, two of the most dramatic highs were in the 1930s during a period completely free of Southern Oscillation phenomena.
Despite wide fluctuations from year to year, when averaged out over 9 year stretches, there is a disturbing tendancy. These are the comparative base figures:
1900-1930: 6
1930-1990: 10
1990-1995: 10 rising to 15
1995-2005: 15 and rising dramatically
Still happy there is no climate change going on? Still convinced it has absolutely nothing to do with mankind? Quite certain it’s just a temporary trend that will level off or subside at any moment? Sure you’ve got enough sand to bury your head in? Well never mind, I don’t live in a tropical cyclone belt and I don’t suppose you do. We’ll just have to keep our fingers crossed it won’t make our lives too uncomfortable by affecting oil prices, that’s all.
Sources: Reuters, GN.
‘El Niño. The Weather Phenomenon that Changed the World’
Ross Couper-Johnston
September 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Anon: Please don’t go. Or, if you do, fare well. You have far more friends here than not. If you want my email address, please ask Jamie. Jamie: if Anon asks for my email address, please give it to him.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
astraya, (406),
Oh, thanks, that’s just delightful. At this rate you’ll have me just wanting to keeping on threatening to resign over and over!
Seriously, hang on though. I’m only bailing out of this topic, not LV as a whole, although I do in fact need to thin down my time a bit. I’m just trying to find time to lay out a small explanatory message.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
And, Wow!
I’m just staggered at the number of folks who have suddenly chipped in here following the bombshell (or shells). Silent vigilants, I guess. Sometimes it feels like one is posting to thin air. Seems the air may be thicker than I supposed.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Re 407,
Excuse the grotty editing. Overcome by emotion.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Tempyra,
Before I post something a tad more explanatory, bouquets, not brickbats for covering any point that might also be mine. That will either save me having to repeat, or if I do, will re-inforce my own comment.
However, it should be pointed out that my termination here doesn’t have anything to do with the introduction. If it did, I should have left long since. Of course I’d rather have seen a more neutral and less inflexible springboard as a starting point for the opinions, but so no doubt would those opposed to animal testing over at that topic, for example. Jamie may be the site owner, but his honest opinion carries no more or less weight than any other lay person’s, and most likely less than those professionally involved in the topic, as he would surely be the first to admit. In a sense he’s thrown down the gauntlet to such as ourselves to convince him he’s mistaken. If we can’t accept that challenge, what chance have we of converting others of a similar or yet more *recalcitrant* frame of mind?
Thanks for your kind words and our positive interaction, which I shall assuredly miss.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:27 am
To JB in particular, and everyone,
I’m not on this site for my amusement. For the sake of my health maybe, since that depends ultimately on the health of our blue planet.
I’m not here either to be contradicted or told I’m wrong by someone who announces himself as a fellow-scientist. That’s just monstrously counter-productive, JB.
Nor, JB, am I interested in conducting academic head-to-head technical discussions about the minutiae of possible climate change causes and effects. LV is simply not an appropriate place for such a forum.
As far as debate goes, there is no question of my mind being changed here. I started to worry about this situation in depth way back in the 1970s, have observed it with awareness ever since, and seen and read nothing convincing to deny it. Quite the reverse. At this point the only proof one way or the other for me will be actual events. It will happen or it won’t happen. I cannot KNOW which. No one can. There’s no precedent. The planet hasn’t faced full-scale human industrial civilization before. But all the evidence I’ve seen and studied makes some kind of major destabilisation sooner or later look extremely likely. If it does happen, we also have no idea what the effects will be, any more than we can put our finger securely on the causes. Perhaps it’s all this uncertainly that makes so many so blithely indifferent.
People are said to fear the unknown. Nonsense. We fear the known. Suppose nuclear weapons had been developed in utter and total secrecy. Suppose you were told someone was going to drop one on you. You’d probably consider all you had to do was duck under the table or dig a bit of a shelter, then come up afterwards, clear up the mess and get on with life. We fear nuclear weapons precisely because we’ve seen what they do.
Early predictions of climate disaster made in the 1970s haven’t come about. I also feared we would suffer before now, but regard that miscalculation with relief as a fortunate breathing space. Many delude and comfort themselves with a quite different interpretation. The experts were wrong, they say, so the whole prediction is wrong. Climate change is a scientific fallacy that will never happen. O.K., for those who support that view, let me give you something to chew on. Imagine: You have a neighbour who lets his kid play in a road with dangerous traffic. It’s so scary, you can’t imagine the child lasting out the day. So you go round to the neighbour and warn him the child will be dead by the end of the day if he leaves it playing there. You realise it may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you’re trying to scare shit out of him so he does something. He tells you to piss off and mind your own business. Mainly by luck, the child survives the day. Your neighbour then knocks at the door, says you don’t know what you’re talking about, the child is still alive, so the road is perfectly safe. He will be letting his child play there every day. It isn’t in the slightest danger. It will play there and live until Kingdom Come. What would you think of that guy? He’s using the same kind of logic as you are, remember.
My purpose and hope coming here was to be able to join forces with like-minded commentators to warn of what I have come to see as something real and potentially disastrous for us all. My arguments and illustrations are intended to change, or at least loosen up the convictions of any who are unsure of the phenomenon, or sure it doesn’t exist, or that it’s a natural event with no relation to human activity. I realise that unless folks have an open mind, the task is simply beyond reach. To that end my own particular examples are basically generalised and wide ranging, and can only be supported in detail by my own fractional speciality. I cannot bring more qualifications and experience to bear than I have.
Now that JB has caused those of us who believe as I do to squabble publicly among ourselves and appear not even to be able to agree about details, I regard our position as hopelessly compromised. If people were trying to convince me of something and started disagreeing among themselves in front of me, would I be convinced? Of course not. So that’s it.
Finally though, I’ll just add one other alarming apparent discovery I’ve made recently. I believe that a lot of you folks aren’t looking at climate change as an objective scientific matter and something that might profoundly and adversely affect our lives at all. You seem to me to have turned it into a knee-jerk political issue. If a doctor said you were suffering from a serious disease, would you believe him if he was a Democrat, but not if he was a Republican, or vice versa? Because that’s what I seem to be seeing. No? Well, it may also be that Democrats are supporting climate change simply because of Al Gore and other like-minded souls, that’s harder to say. What looks more obvious is the other side of the coin. I notice certain people have no problem with the war in Iraq. Apparently it was perfectly OK to accept somebody’s word on weapons of mass destruction. No proof needed. Don’t believe the odd expert who denies it. If the government and military authorities assure us, good enough. In we go. Climate change? Ah, that’s different. Must have proof, won’t believe it otherwise. Look for any odd expert who denies it and accept their word against the majority. If Al Gore supports it, must be wrong. Well, if that really is happening, it’s terrifying. May I be hopelessly mistaken.
That’s it then. See you on other LV sites.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Anon: Seriously, hang on though. I’m only bailing out of this topic, not LV as a whole, although I do in fact need to thin down my time a bit.
Anon – I think that some confusion may have been engendered by your choice of words. In #395 you say “I’m not prepared to waste more time at this site”…when, perhaps you meant list? This is also suggested by your words in #411, where you say “See you on other LV sites.”
No biggie…just a case of semantics.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I generally keep an eye on the “recent comments” section. If someone posts to a topic, then I might follow the link to read at length. I’ve kept out of this topic because a) I’ve already said my piece and no-one seems to have responded to it and b) I knew that it would generate a lot of hot air.
My last word: nay-sayers – are you prepared for the consequences of being wrong?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:02 am
astraya: I am not prepared for being wrong because I am not wrong. The fact that the pro-warming people (Tempyra) are going to launch a personal attack on me and my site for wanting more evidence is proof enough that the only reason it is such a big deal is entirely politically motivated. For me it isn’t – for me it is about science and too many scientists deny it is real. For people like Tempyra it is a way to force people to conform to their way of thinking and attacking is the only solution when you can’t defend your argument. So, my question is – are the global warming alarmists prepared to front up and admit they are wrong when we get 20 years (not just the 10 we have already) that shows no warming and no physical evidence to support the UN predictions?
September 8th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Anon:
“I’m not here either to be contradicted or told I’m wrong by someone who announces himself as a fellow-scientist. That’s just monstrously counter-productive, JB.
Nor, JB, am I interested in conducting academic head-to-head technical discussions about the minutiae of possible climate change causes and effects.”
well, I see at least one contradiction here. If you’re unable (or you don’t want) to answer the few weak points I was asking, why you take so seriously my degree?. Act as the scientist you’re. Isn’t my position the one that’s being endangered stopping the debate by “authority criteria”.
The only thing I told you to be wrong is when you said “the scientist comunity agree about global warming”. You just have to learn a litle more about IPCC to find out that, even there, that’s wrong. What may be true is that the whole scientist community wonders about global warming.
I didn’t say you were wrong in anything else. Actually I am closer to your position and words than you presume.
I assumed most facts you pointed being true that may be a climate change consequences (and I believe so, even without having evidences):
- Iceshell melting
- Inland glaciers melting
- Changes in some (or most) biological enviroments
- Increese of tropical storms in the Caribean sea
(and surelly I’m forgetting more)
But I was also wondering about that:
- Why the increase of greenhouse gases affect so much to heating even when they’re acting on saturated spectra splits?
- Where are that sea rising evidences?
- Why the only atoll having to be evacuated is Tuvalu? (the one whose natural resources where brutally exploited and that explains it’s sea water intrusion)
- Why some global warming articlees doesn’t still correct it’s temperature graphics even when they know they’re wrong?
- Why global warming scientist didn’t repudiate Al Gore after the amount of stupid things he says in his movie?
And the most important one:
- Why so many lies?
Deniers may say “because it’s all a huge lie”.
I don’t think so.
I believe they’re just trying to hurry up people, saying that the wolf is here. And we don’t see it although it has already jumped over us and opened his jaws.
But those lies help some people to take benefit harming science in itself.
And I don’t agree that position of: “poor stupid people that must be warned with fantastic fables to make them understand”
I don’t know why the truth can’t be said.
For example: “ok. Sea level isn’t rising at all, but that’s because the iceshelf is acting as a cooler preventing water to expand. But when we’re running out of iceshell sea level will start to increase and then it will be too late.”
jfrater:
Many people talks too much without knowing more than you and me in both sides. That’s how politic (not science) works. That how so many popular movements (so unpopulars today) came to power. Not general relativity nor Newton mechanics nor quantum mechanics were imposed by that way. Actually in quantum mechanics is interesting to see how Einstein’s denier position helped so much that theory to be proven right.
But that doesn’t mean everybody is wrong. As I said we may start to take preventions (not at any price) but without forgetting that the scientist research has still to be done.
and Anon again,
I was saying to slow that because I was enjoing it and I didn’t wanted to happen what has happened.
greating
September 8th, 2008 at 7:03 am
The stupid part of this whole “controversy” is that whether climate change is manmade or not, petroleum is a finite resource and will eventually run out. Clean, renewable technologies will be required regardless of the cause. Why not plunge all available resources (read “money”) into developing these new technologies and try to be ahead of the curve for the first time in a long time? In typical American fashion (a la the previous gas crisis in the 70’s) we will argue and argue and let the oil companies buy their way into stalling research until the next Toyota kicks our ass. Again.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
and to the rest:
NEVER be afraid of being wrong.
And a litle parentasis not to have in consider just to put segue in her place:
Your position is both ludicrous as contradictory.
I see now what before I presumed. You have absolutely no idea of anything relating to this topic. ¿you have read a lot and knows more than a scientist? Yes of course! Those people like you have a name: cranks (look the definition in wikipedia if you want) I didn’t wanted to say that because I find it as childish as your words, but I hope it to calm down your trolish activities (yes my friend, you’re the troll here):
My studies (what I’ve been already evaluated for) put me even in a higher position than Anon in global warming understanding, because are closer to this topic than him. But I won’t take this as an advantage, firstly because I agree with him in most of his words, I know I will find some answers in his wisdom (and you better read him to learn something also) and finally I belive he actually knows more about global warming than me, even if there are some things he don’t understand.
Why?
Because I don’t credit nor discredit nobody by his studies but his knowledgments shown through their words. Not how you’ve been doing since I first post in this topic.
¿Have I said something against you till now? As a good troll you ended my patience,
congratulations
September 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
JB,
You deserve one return visit and reply here because you’re obviously sincere and have been made to feel you’re the cause of this situation. Whereas in fact you’re no more than the unintentionally clumsy catalyst and something of an innocent victim. The way you addressed segue and myself to begin with was however extremely impertinent from a student still on the lower rungs of a career. For that we were very angry with you. You still continue with this lack of sufficient respect towards those with far more expereince than yourself. Nevetheless, it isn’t fair you should feel hurt.
Basically you believe this to be a clean scientific issue when in fact it has become to a considerable degree a messy political one. Who is to blame for the politics simply depends on political viewpoint, it seems. You will see people either believing or not believing because of Al Gore, as though Gore IS climate change rather than just having written a popular book about it. Does that worry you as much as it worries me?
I don’t want to continue our exchange – not out of disrespect to you or the subject, but because there’s no point. It’s a waste of time and I have much work to do and am falling behind. Why is there no point? Because everybody here has made up their minds and won’t even respond to extreme calls to logic. The people who don’t accept climate change say they KNOW they are right. No one here, for example, has examined my post on storm increase and either challenged it or provided an alternative explanation. The same holds for other specific examples and metaphors. The fact that you are one of the few who has challenged a concrete model is actually what makes the whole business so bizarre. Nobody *in contra* accepts that if nothing happens we shall all be here as before as now and all will be well. What more really matters? O.K. So worst case predictions will be wrong. So what? Little more than hubris would be involved, because, as others keep pointing out, the obviously sensible steps would benefit us all anyway. I shan’t admit I was WRONG (if I still happen to be alive at that overripe old age), because I have never claimed to be RIGHT beyond doubt in the first place. THE ONLY IMPORTANT ISSUE IS WHAT IF THE WORST SHOULD HAPPEN, AND HAPPEN SOON. (Sorry about the caps. It seems that too many fail to understand the screamingly obvious logic of that.)
My comment: “At this point the only proof one way or the other for me will be actual events. It will happen or it won’t happen. I cannot KNOW which. No one can. There’s no precedent. The planet hasn’t faced full-scale human industrial civilization before. But all the evidence I’ve seen and studied makes some kind of major destabilisation sooner or later look extremely likely. If it does happen, we also have no idea what the effects will be, any more than we can put our finger securely on the causes. Perhaps it’s all this uncertainly that makes so many so blithely indifferent.”
jfrater: “I am not wrong. The fact that the pro-warming people (Tempyra) are going to launch a personal attack on me and my site for wanting more evidence is proof enough that the only reason it is such a big deal is entirely politically motivated. For me it isn’t – for me it is about science and too many scientists deny it is real. For people like Tempyra it is a way to force people to conform to their way of thinking and attacking is the only solution when you can’t defend your argument. So, my question is – are the global warming alarmists prepared to front up and admit they are wrong when we get 20 years (not just the 10 we have already) that shows no warming and no physical evidence to support the UN predictions?”
As a scientist, JB, draw your own conclusion from those two statements. In particular, as a scientifically trained person, you might notice that jfrater is using scientific disagreement and uncertainty to form the opinion he is right beyond doubt. If you want to continue this theme, I suggest you take it up with jfrater and all those who share his conviction.
kiwiboi,
Yes, you’re absolutely correct about my muddling *site* and *topic*. I’m sorry if that has caused problems for the site at large, or anybody in particular. What with my my infected tooth and writing into the night, it’ll be a miracle if that’s the only cock up in my postings here!
This really is my final curtain bow at this topic. (Please!)
September 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The only thing I told you to be wrong is when you said “the scientist comunity agree about global warming”.”
“But I also want you to do the same. Couse I don’t see in that “marginal specialist Norwegian” atribute a respectfull treatment.”
September 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am
let me start with 386 (what is for me the hard point):
When I’m talking about panic is because when I asked: “at what price” segue answered without doubting: “at anyprice”.
Let me put two known examples:
JB, you dismiss me because you asked, “at what price?”, and my answer was, “at any price.”
You take that to the ridiculous, and make it not just include, but include FIRST!:
1st: Biodiesel:
It’s said that this new source of energy is cleaner than fossil ones. I don’t think so. And in any case I think without global warming it’s exploitation would have never started. That mean that global warming was used as propaganda for that industry, and the world fell in it. The consequences are clear. Today poornes in the thirth world have been increased thanks to biodiesel exploitatiion. Today is more important to feed occidental cars than Brazilian childs. But we accept that situation because global warming must be fought at “any price”.
In the first place, if my argument is to keep the planet from global climate change, why on earth would I choose biodiesel? Natural gas and ethanol are both clean fuels, and contribute nothing to the atmosphere.
Even more outrageous, how dare you charge me with finding it more important to “feed occidental cars than Brazilian childs”. I swear to you JB, if I knew who you were, and knew how to get in touch with you, you would soon be hearing from my lawyer.
I could go through your pathetic argument line by line, but I have more important things to do than to educate an undergrad who has styled himself a scientist.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I don’t know where that 386 comment came from…maybe a leftover from the post above.
My comments begin with When I’m talking about panic is because when I asked:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am
JB,
(Sighs resignedly.) One last piece of advice. You have earned it. When I call you clumsy I mean in your assessment of who you are dealing with in these comments (and how) and what is going on, not in any basically scientific sense. You have a lot to offer, and are very intelligent and well-informed on many matters, but you’re wasting your time here. Above all you are inadvertently deeply upsetting the wrong people. The very people who are basically on *your side*. And please understand that being honestly wrong or unsure and admitting so is a noble and correct ethical and scientific stance. But your opponents will only use it to savage you. Ask Dawkins and other evolutionists. And your opponents will never admit they may be wrong or in doubt. Sorry. Please use your valuable time and hard-earned education better elsewhere.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
421. segue
I don’t know where that 386 comment came from
****
Actually, I *do* know where 386 came from (I was disrupted and lost track of what I was doing), it is a direct quote from JB, which I am refuting in 420.
Sorry for the confusion.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
JB,
Sorry, I’m back, but only because I accidentally failed to copy out the following in full in my Nº 418:
“I am not prepared for being wrong because I am not wrong.”
jfrater, Post Nº 414.
Science? Or religion?
September 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Anon: Science
If I am wrong I will change my view. But for now there are sufficient numbers of scientists who deny it for me to have doubts.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Anon
“And please understand that being honestly wrong or unsure and admitting so is a noble and correct ethical and scientific stance. But your opponents will only use it to savage you.”
Don’t worry. Those who take advantage of that doesn’t deserve my attention and are easy to put in their place. Till now I found many global warners thinking in that way. So many that I though imposible to find someone confidence enough. You’ve shown me that I was wrong.
jfrater:
“I am not prepared for being wrong because I am not wrong.”
“If I am wrong I will change my view.”
Damm. You’re mocking on us and we’re taking it seriously. Why is so difficult to admit “I don’t know but I believe…”?
Do you really know that global warming is wrong? or you, as said in the introduction, knows that something smells bad?
There’s a huge difference between both sentence. You can’t blame the whole global warming theory for the faults of few who wants to take selfish benefit.
There’re hoaxes on both sides. Everyday new results comes to news. Some seems to soport global warming others don’t. And some of them tells about natural “springs” that have still to be activated such as CO2 contained in seawater or artic permafrost.
This is the kind of damage i said politics are doing to global warming issue. I think Al Gore helped fools joining global warners, but others found him so fraudulent that saw in it an “evidence” that global warming is a joke. It’s not global warming what is a hoax but Al Gore.
And again, ¿do you really think is just a big hoax? Because to be so sure you shall know what’s happening in the Artic iceshelf or Perito Moreno glacier, for example.
Anon again:
Science? Or religion?
I was going to point that before. And is exactly what I’ve found so often. Such strong positions in both sides. And if you don’t agree with them you’re against them (in Bush style). Segue and jfrater are the both sides of the same zealot and dogmatic position (But I presume jfrater doesn’t believe what he said and I will make him confess XD).
Why shall this important topic, that affect to us all, be so difficult to be discussed about?
I say “shall” because I think it isn’t a spontaneous reaction.
Anyway.
, I hope age will heal it).
Have been a pleasure to read you, and I’ll take into account your advices (clumsy is my surname and my english doesn’t help to it
I hope to find you in another discusion in some other topic.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:19 am
JB,
Reluctantly I am compelled to return yet again (and hope you are still reading: if not I’m running up a sheer waste of time). It’s not directly to do with me, or you and me at all. I’m most upset to observe what’s happened between segue and yourself. It’s crazy. I’ve always held segue in the highest esteem, respect and affection, and now my opinion of you is climbing steadily as well. We should and must all be on the same side. So my return here is to try to act as mediator and peacemaker to bring you together.
I don’t know how many of the comments of this theme you’ve read. I myself haven’t managed to read them all, and often don’t for other topics when they run into several hundreds. It’s not that I’m not interested, or don’t intend to. It’s just that I never manage to get around to it. So if you haven’t already (or perhaps even if you have) I ask you to read the following postings here by segue:
287, 290, 294, 297/98, 310, 314, 316, 327, 329, 335, 339, 341, (364) and 361.
I hope and believe they make sense in their own right, even though many are part of a dialogue with myself.
If you still consider her to be a complete scientific ignoramus, a *troll*, a *crank*, a *zealot*, *childish* and *dogmatic* after that, then I fear your definition of those words bears absolutely no relation to mine. I should also inform you that segue is one of the most admired and loved people on LV, both for her intellect and her personality. So you would be more or less an outcast here. If that is your true assessment, and not a temporary tantrum reaction, then I fear you and I will also be a long and unreconciable way apart.
My feeling is that we all got off on the wrong foot. To some extent this is certainly due to your not being a native English speaker. This is neither your fault or a criticism. Your English is obviously not perfect, and sometimes here and there it is truly difficult to decide exactly what you mean. Nevertheless you express yourself remarkably well considering the complexity of the subject. If not as fluently as some one like the Croatian dr Lecter, at least far better than many of the people on LV for whom English is their native tongue. I would also add that serious misunderstandings often arise here even when both protagonists speak English.
To put my finger on one or two particular instances.
You questioned my use of the word *sceptic*, describing it as meaning for yourself someone who does not accept existing bad information and goes back to source to find a truer explanation. That is not the definition given by my dictionary, or the sense in which I used the word: “Inclined to suspense of judgement, given to questioning truth of facts and soundness of inferences, critical, incredulous …”. That’s all. Nothing about looking at the facts again and constructing better alternative views.
You accused segue and me of panicking when in fact we are merely trying to promote urgency. These are entirely different.
You rejected my example of a genuine and highly regarded piece of scientific field research on Norwegian alpine plants.
You referred to us as *goodies*, as though we were well-meaning, sentimental, half-informed amateurs out to *save the world*. That is not, I suspect, a piece of lèse-majesté you could or would aim at your own experienced tutors and professors.
I realise you didn’t in the least intend to create the inevitable anger and frustration all this engendered. But unfortunately for us all it happened. I believe and hope you and I are now in a position of mutual trust and respect. I want to see you and segue in the same position. That’s up to your volition, humility and goodwill.
I have confidence you will be that *big*. You don’t need *age to heal*. Intelligence and open-mindedness here and now will do.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:32 am
sorry about that Norwegian issue. It was a huge misunderstanding. I though you’re refering to Nils-Axel Mörner (who is actually Swedish). I haven’t found the comment nor quote you were refering at. If you have any article about it in open source I’ll be pleased to read it. It would be one of my firsts in botanics. And I will admit that I’m wrong about this next paragraph:
“So what the hell relevance have field observations got to do with lab studies? Can you please tell me how to *lab study* for years on end the outdoor vegetation cover of a mountain top in a lab…”
That’s the point. When I’m saying under lab conditions doesn’t mean “inside” a lab. Means isolating the possible causes under full control and finding out which one is affeting the most. Outside “field” studies can say what is happening but not why. You know more than me there’re thousands of posible causes that are hard to notice outdoors, and maybe some we haven’t discovered yet. A scientific proved article must be as a cooking recept: You must have enough information about the conditions to “do” it at “home” and find out the same results except a quantified error. The only two sciences that are free to reproductivity are astrophysics and meteorology. (even cosmology is under test right now in the LHC).
If you belive that lab experiments can’t add anything to those studies ¿which is your opinion about those computer simulations that pretend to be global warming evidences?
I’m sure segue is not what I said. It was a reaction to stop her senseless attacks that seemed proper to someone who’ve loose his arguments. Is what make that issue to people, putting them on such extreme positions without accepting other points of view (I recognise being there in abortion topic for example), becaming us in what we aren’t.
I have remembered just now a friend of mine who went study to California and told me that university degrees are so different from here (five years of full specializad studies without subjets as hystory nor lenguages, etc.). Here everybody leaves university with high knowledgments and not only the ones aiming to be researchers. So maybe that explains segue’s protests.
While you don’t, there’re many people who would accept desperate solutions to global warming without wondering about the consequences. That’s why I think we must take care when saying “at any price”. Because for them “any” means “whoever or whatever I harm”. I though I make me understand the first time with two well known examples.
In my lenguage dictionary the word “scepticism” have 2 entries:
1.”Philosofical doctrine that consider human reason unable to find the truth.” (Hume and Kant are both examples of that movement)
2. “readiness to doubt.”
This one is translated using google translator, I think is correct. In my words it’s more or less translated as: “Being ready to doubt.”
Maybe the problem has an etymological origin, making different meanings deppending on the lenguage.
I will take a look to those comments. I think I didn’t read the first ones.
greatings
September 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
JB,
“At any price”
We tend to use this as something of a hyperbolic statement in everday English. Sometimes we qualify it as *At almost any price*. Of course you should not be expected to know this.
When spoken by someone we know to be sane and reasonable, we understand they do NOT mean it literally. Again it’s a summons to urgency. If we are asked how we stop a dictator invading us, we might say “At any price”. That would mean we should be prepared to go war and not just stop short at diplomatic negotiations. It would be a warning of our intentions and determination. It would not imply that we were going to ignore the Geneva Convention, drop gas bombs on his civilian towns, shoot all prisoners and massacre his entire population so they could never attack us again.
You should know that segue became really angry with you because you did indeed take the statement literally and accused her of inhuman intentions. I would have reacted similarly. If you knew segue from past comments, you must surely have known from her character and humanity that implication was untrue and inflammatory.
It is clear she also believes that you were placing your education above her considerable life experience, which is in fact how it reads. As I have pointed out, you were patronising segue and myself from the start, and that is what provoked our response. We did not begin this sequence, and I am now trying to end it. But you must admit how much your own attitude has contributed. Age and life-experience do not merit automatic respect, but should at least be taken into account and not trampled on.
University education, knowledge and even science does not automatically or necessarily make people rational, reasonable and intellectually *superior* either, by the way. In fact it may even make them intellectually arrogant. I myself was not educated at a university and have suffered from the ignorance and contempt of those who have before now. My father was one of the top organic food chemists of his time. Although a MSc, he did not go to a *top* British University, and was often bullied and made fun of by those who had the benefit of that privileged education.
By the way, considering the U.S. university system (I’m British), my brief time in LV has led to believe that at least a couple of the American commentators here are probably at the same stage as yourself and of the same intellectual standard.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
JB,
Oh, by the way. You may not know this, but segue suffers from a terrible, chronic, painful condition that affects her continuously. She never loses the pain and never will. It just subsides at some times and grows worse at others. Sometimes it’s so bad that she cannot even concentrate or think sufficently to contribute here. She has told us all this from time to time and place to place on LV. That she manages to live a normal life at all is a magnificent triumph of will. She will sometimes apologise for an irrational reaction because her mental functions were blinded by pain at the time.
I am telling you this because I consider you ought to know. The point is exactly as I have just said. It may affect the manner in which she reacts. That and nothing else. She would not want you to pity her. Nor, I would add, should you dare to consider it negates the clarity or consistency of her ideas and principles. In that she is second to none of us here. Of course her personal experience may powerfully and justly affect her opinion on subjects such as animal testing, for example.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:51 am
that’s absurd!
In a public issue “at any price” is a fascist statement. Is the basic statement of any fscist policy. Trivialize or commonplace that term is the way most of the worst atrocities were made in last century with the conscent of the people.
Do you realise how much this ambiguation about “anyprice” is actually endangering the entire world?
let me put an exemple of how much absurd can it be:
>
¿Don’t you find a real danger to fall in a fascist state due to those ambiguities?
September 11th, 2008 at 7:13 am
One ultimate word for you JB, since you’ve tried my patience to the limit and shown yourself only to have *paper humanity*. I don’t think we shall be meeting again.
CONTEXT.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
(sorry I meesed up with code)
let me put an exemple of how much absurd can it be:
”
American X: 38.000 civils perished in Irak due collateral damages.
GWB: What’s up? I said it would be at any price.
A X: Yes. But we though you meant at almost any price.
GWB: But I said at any price and I did what I promised.
”
I can accept the ambiguation of the term sceptic. But this one is terrifying me.
I don’t say that whoever saing “at any price” is a fascist. I say that people who actually aren’t are using this sentence for benefit of those who really don’t care about the consequences of their activities.
My both mother lenguages have expressions that follows “at any price” sentence: “falls who falls” and “bombs who bombs”. Just to point how the consequences are implicit in the term “at any price”.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:14 am
O.K., since you didn’t finish, I’ll provide you with an example of CONTEXT:
So we can’t even say something lightheated like, “I´m going to finish this job at any price, come hell or high water!” now?
Semantic pretentiousness.
Words and phrases get re-defined, altered and made ambiguous all the time.
Try saying in public, “I’m a gay person” 100 years ago and today, and see what the reactions would be.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
And in case you’re still under the illusion that this is about words and meaning, and nothing else, JB. It isn’t.
The fact that you failed to respond first and foremost, LET ALONE AT ALL, with minimal humanity and humility to the information I gave you about segue places you beneath contempt. When I say MINIMALLY, I mean something like: “I’m terribly sorry, I didn’t know. Of course I shouldn’t have expected a response to my own standards under the circumstances. I retract my remarks”. You are a tunnel-visioned paper idealist who cannot see when he is damaging real people under his feet.
Although no one else has joined in this altercation, I am sure silent eyes are watching and forming their own opinions. As I said, segue is much loved on LV.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Take for sure I’m sorry and I empathied with her when reading that (increasing my respect to her). I didn’t say nothing for respect. She will get offended, and with reason, if that had to excuse her words. While I can understand much better her reactions I’m sure, as you said, she don’t want any special treatment nor justification for that. In the other hand maybe I had to know it, so thanks for taking the hard decision to say it. I’m sorry if I seemed cold when I was actually trying to normalize the situation. As I’m also sorry for those exessive words I said that segue nor none in this discussion deserve.
In any case.
For changing the world some “prides” must be put in their place. I reconize being sometimes clumpsy enough to offend someone without wanting to. But I don’t feel damaging real people under my feet. Firstly because I don’t want nor believe anyone being under my feet. Secondly because I started the personal attacks when I got tired of recieving them. Don’t make such huge demagogy about that. Anyone have only to follow the comments to find out who’s in wich position.
That’s internet in it’s whole explendor, not any kind of selective club. Here words stand by their own and not for whom is writing them. Even being beloved (and she deserves all my respects as anyone else) that doesn’t give her the right to freely insult and even threat me without expecting my reaction. Deffending myself to those personal attacks doesn’t make me arrogant, while I could have been in other things (as much as clumpsy).
If I can quote jfrater in any your-view topic:
“Remember, battle against arguments – not people – ad hominem attacks are a sign of a failed argument.”
maybe had to add: “also remember that others attacks are towards arguments and not people”
Even in that “at any price” issue I tried to show how something allegedly innocent can be corrupted for commiting atrocities. I wasn’t saying that segue herself was commiting them. I believe she meant: “I will do any sacrifice in my day by day life” but other people uses the same expression for meaning: “I will sacrifice anyone anywhere, even their lives”. And there’s a real danger in that ambiguity.
I hope to improve that atmosphere to the point that even segue can apolagize my offenses to her.
greating
let me link something completaly off-topic:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sceptical
the references are from American Heritage Dictionary.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:01 am
this is the best way to invest that money. Much less than Kioto’s 1% is enough to make this a reality in our everyday life:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5886/226?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=baldo&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21217/
November 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
For any late-comers. “Global Warming” is an outdated misnomer and dangerously distractive red-herring. Rethink to “Potential Random Climate Change”, please. And whatever your immediate opinion, try to remain at least open-minded to the possibility. Most serious scientists are. Try not to be confused or prejudiced by political input or previous erronous forecasts. Most serious scientists aren’t. They know that’s absurd logic.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Those who are using Al Gore, a hypocritcal liberal Democrat as a reason to reject the notion of man-made climate change should note the following:
Armold Schwarzenneger, Governor of California and noted Republican, has just chaired an invited international meeting on tackling man-made climate change through gas emissions (18-19 November). Among the invitees were China, Brazil and Indonesia. Schwarzenegger, cynical politician on the make who is defying his honest Bush administration? Or far-sighted independent thinker, worried by some of the climatic developments in the southern states of his own country and the wowrld at large?
November 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Arnie, not Armie, of course. world too.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am
why is it that we need a reason to treat the planet with more respect? does the world need to be crumbling beneath our feet before we stand up and do something? by then it will be too late! regardless of your viewpoint on global warming or greenhouse gasses, climate change, or whatever else you want to argue for or against, the point of the matter is, that this is our home. our only home. i personally don’t want our soil to be void of minerals because we sprayed too many chemicals on it, or didn’t let it go through a natural dormant stage. i don’t want to look back and think, oh, maybe i didn’t need a giant SUV to drive MYSELF to work every day, maybe i shouldn’t have idled my car for 15 minutes while i sat in the drive through, instead of spending 10 minutes waiting in line inside the coffee shop. there are simple things that once you start to do them, you don’t even notice that you have changed anything. global warming or not, there is an ever increasing amount of chemicals, voc’s and carbons being pumped in to our air, and i don’t want to worry about “air quality” in the summer anymore, or worry that my children will have more problems with asthma or bronchial infections because i didn’t want to give up my gas guzzler, or be “inconvenienced” by not going through the drive through. we have become a nation, living in the lap of luxury, to lazy to do anything to even save OURSELVES, let alone the people in this world who don’t have the means to do anything about anything. don’t give up your planet for a status symbol, or a convenience factor. or better yet, if you don’t care about it, please, don’t give up MY planet for YOUR laziness and desire to have the bigger and better.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:06 am
If earth is my home i dont want people cutting down pillar of my house and pouring chemicals into my toilet bowl
January 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Nope, global warming is not helped along by people at all.
It’s helped along by one giant invisible furry muppet named Clyde. Ugghh.
We’ve known for years that CFC’s, carbon and other chemicals that WE USE deplete the ozone layer. It’s science. I can have an open mind, but come on- you have to be able to accept that we at least contribute to global warming.
And regardless, we should be trying to reduce our footprint anyway and begin to care more about what we do to the environment.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Meagan (443),
How about this?
Your opinion: Do People Cause Road Deaths?
A: No, Vehicles Do. Saying people do is simply trying to shift the bllame off vehicles. Vehicles kill. People don’t. I know that. There’s nothing to be done. So don’t let’s try modifying road policy. Just keep on as we are.
January 28th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Global warming due to humanity is not a hoax. It is undeniable that exhaust from industrialisation has shifted the chemical composition of the atmosphere, therefore affecting the ozone. It is, however, important to note that the earth’s climate has a natural cycle, having been through ice ages and warm centuries. Despite that, it cannot be argued against that humanity’s rise has sped up this cycle. What once took centuries is now taking a few decades to happen.
There are also a few misconception. Global warming, while it will generally warm the planet, will transform some areas into better climates for human settlement (say the sahara desert will become a vast grassy plain). However, take heed that this abrupt shift in climate will be the cause of a vast human migration, the submerging of lowlying territories, many of which are severely populated (i.e. the deltas of Bangladesh). Imagine trying to cope with millions of climate refugees… is this not something to fear?
Also, there is a reason while climate change is now the more used term. That is because global warming, while generally warming the planet, will also make climate patterns more severe. Europe, while experiencing hotter summers, will also experience colder winter (I think this may be wrong, however, the notion par the example is scientifically theorised).
The receding of Tahiti’s coastline, longer El Nino’s, frequent heatwaves in mediterranean regions, winters in subtropical areas. Severe cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons. Once temperate climates turning mediterranean. These are just some of the effects.
Regardless, the danger of climate change is not whether the earth will change. But whether humanity can cope with the earth’s change. The earth will continue to be the earth, self-regulating itself. But the danger is… will humanity continue to be as it is? Sometimes we do need to accept change, but at other times, we need to slow it down so that we can cope with what the future holds.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Archangel, (445)
And as James Lovelock observes, might the planet’s self-regulating process involve ridding itself of something troublesome to its stability, i.e. us?
It’s also worth noting that the idea of shifting climate zones and subsequent favourable new changes of agriculture is a near-certain delusion for reasons you have also pointed out: extremes and instability. Both of those are the mortal enemies of cultivation growth cycles. Very few crops will adapt to unstable and extreme climates. Grass and grazing animals maybe, extreme drought aside.
We are not getting longer El Niños here in Chile. Far from it. Right now we are waiting for one that hasn’t shown up for a good long while.
The supercillously derisive of this topic might like to consider that the small present blip in the human economic system is being forecast as likely to cause around a 7% global increase in unemployment at its peak. Try imagining the effect of severe agricultural disruption caused by a large blip in the climate-influenced natural economy.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Nice points Anon,
I’m sure a small longitudal belt on the world will have a favourable climate, however, the rest of it will be subjected to extremes unable to support long-term agriculture. Imagine also the strain on human settlement as 7 billion people on the world try to migrate to one small favourable belt, in addition to the food crisis you mentioned.
On a side note: Australia’s been hogging your El Nino Chile! (You probably already know this but we are your climatic opposite in terms of La Nina, El Nino We’ve been in drought here for a record time. However, we are entering La Nina now so I hope El Nino has transferred to Chile already.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
archangel,
Well, were’re getting scads of jellyfish and medusas everywhere, including washed up on the neaches in quantity, which are ruining peoples’ summer holidays (summer whats?).
Some say it presages a La Niña (= yet more general drought for us), but I’m not a marine biologist, so can’t say. These irregular climatic phenomena seem to be so unpredictable that you can only be sure what you’ve got after you’ve had it!
January 30th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Anon: How peculiar. We are also getting massive numbers of jellyfish washing up on the beaches here. After a particularly severe surge and high tide, the beach was littered for miles with pieces of jellies, scattered from the waterline to the bluffs (which had been the last high tide mark).
We drove from our own beaches up through Big Sur, to a particular favorite beach there, and it also was littered with jellies.
Most years, there are a few jellyfish beached, but this year is astonishing in it’s numbers.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
BTW, they are all one variety of jellyfish.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:23 am
Those are odd. I also saw a documentary on populations of jellyfish appearing in the sea of Japan, and there are scientific claims that the rise and frequency of their appearance compared to previous are linked to climate change. It has also become a major detriment to the Japanese fishing industry.
If Chile stays in La Nina, then that will definitely be odd as Australia and Chile are supposed to have a switching pattern. If both sides of the Pacific are in La Nina… that would be quite a shift to the climate.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:47 am
451. archangel: We have been in drought condition here for several years. Enough so that every summer we go into water-rationing mode (quite unpleasant, but necessary), so even the smallest amount of rain sets of a growth spurt in the hills amongst the native flora.
Meanwhile, I have to carry buckets of water to my plantings to make sure they are well nourished. I’m always thankful when the trees roots finally tap into the aquifer!
We will get a day or two of rain but it’s never enough to break us out of the drought, and yet, with the heavily dew laden morning and nightime air, everything remains green. The benefits of living right on the coast!
No one can convince me that global climate change isn’t real. I see too much anecdotal evidence around me daily. I live in a very delicate microcosm, and the effects of climate change are here, and they’re sad:
Sea Otters, dead, washed ashore. No evidence of attack or injury.
Deer, which used to be abundant, are becoming less and less so because the prey animals, which used to stay deeper into the woods, are coming out into the open; bobcat, fox, bear. The coyotes have always been out in the open, have always hunted in packs. That’s their nature.
In the last two months I’ve found two partial deer carcasses (all that was left was some skin and some bones) and a fox carcass, almost entirely eaten. One of the deer was on my property, the other and the fox a little way away.
The nature of the wild flora is changing, slowly but surely.
I could go on for pages and pages, but what would be the point?
It’s anecdotal evidence, which is worthless.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Here is a link to the species of jellyfish which are littering our beaches. They come in, in bits, by the hundreds and thousands. They glitter like diamonds.
It’s terribly sad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_(genus)
January 31st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
segue,
Anecdotal evidence is primary observation, which is the basis for formal observation, which may be the basis for hypothesis, which could be the basis for thesis.
(Or you might jump straight from formal observation to thesis if the evidence happened to be convincing enough.)
Which doesn’t in any way imply the anecdotal is ‘true’ … But. Don’t knock it.
Don’t overlook either that opponents of our view are using the anecdotal as their main ammunition.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Or Al Gore, if that’s all they have!
January 31st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
You know I find it hard to believe that this kind of discussion is still going on. There is proof that Global warming happens, and also you say that there is a conspiracy to keep it alive. I America the government changed scientific documents to discredit global warming. If anything the conspiracy is the other way round.
Also Consider this:
Fossil fuels are running out, oil maybe has a couple of hundred years left, properly less. Were going to have to change are fuels anyway even if they aren’t destroying the earth, which they are.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
PC, (456),
I would have been inclined to agree with you. But the more time I spend in LV the more I understand WHY this kind of head-banging discussion goes on in so many threads. I think Cyn just summed it up in a reply to me elsewhere which could hardly be improved on. As I haven’t got a file open in the compu, I’ll post this and come back with Cyn’s gem.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Here it is:
“253. Anon -
weep? no. not a thing written in comments makes me sad. scares the hella outa me? oh yeah. so glad i live in state that allows private citizens to carry concealed handguns. cuz i’d not want to cross paths w/ a buncha these loons w/out one! concerns me about the future of my species? oh hell fucking yes! given the lack of coherency and intelligence of some of these comments…makes me wonder how we’ve survived this long. *shudder*”
Source Cyn, LV, 31 January 2009.
I’d add that what scares me is not so much the loonies as apparently otherwise intelligent and rational folks who cannot even open their minds to the remotest possibility we may be irreparably (from our point of view) damaging our only home planet. The longer I live, the more I realise there are areas of self-deception and self-interest which know no limits and are blind to their own consequences.
If you check topics such as evolution and climate change here, you will find certain common denominators. However much people who defend those concepts use rational argument and restrained objective explanation, often backed by personal career involvement or other authority, you will find many on the other side calling them ‘fanatics’ or partisan personal adherents to the likes of Darwin or Al Gore.
Another commonplace tactic in this topic is to find climate change (always referred to contemptuously as ‘global warming’) rubbished for two utterly spurious reasons. Firstly because Al Gore is its self-appointed figurehead and Al Gore can be careless with facts and makes money, and, most unforgiveable of all in certain US eyes, is liberal. Secondly, because worst-case forecasts of the 1970s have not materialised at the (foolishly-set) dates forecast. Now I’m going to propose a parallel. Doctors can wrongly diagnose illnesses. This can even lead to the death of patients. People in medicine are chucked out for malpractice. Very rarely drugs can fail, even disastrously (e.g. thalidomide). So would you, or any person over the age of ten with any kind of a brain, dismiss the entire field of medical science on those grounds?
BTW, there is and has been more than ‘hidden’ politics behind the actions to pull wool over people’s eyes. To that you can add extremely rich and powerful global economic interests and even influential religious movements.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Anon -
oh, my! i am being quoted.
does work in this context as well.
as for conspiracies. ..
hey, don’t get me started on all that stuff whether it be climate change that i have witnessed in my lifetime (never had hurricanes like what i’ve actually run like hell from last coupla yrs when i was a kid!) and i know from basic freaking high school science classes weather has changed since we started dumping coal into the air w/ the industrial age (frankly think we started it w/ the first fire outside the cave) and woe be unto you if you get me started on the American medical system and Big Pharma. we do not heal here… we not only create new diseases, we keep people sick on the old ones. keeps Big Pharma in business donchayaknow. oh yeah…and the insurance industry. i’ll stop now before i get too worked up.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:53 am
So alright, in Listverse… does a discussion ever finish with a winning view? Because if it does, although not an absolute win, then it certainly seems that those who recognise global warming as real have won this thread.
Nice comment by the way Cyn.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:46 am
PC, (456), et al.,
I’m backtracking a couple of posts or so, but forgot another regular objection.
This one: There’s always been climate change and what we are getting now is just part of that pattern. For anyone who has taken the slightest trouble to examine climate historically and in the present, and recognises the distinct differences and tie-in with the rise of the industrial era, this would be like making the following claim:
Loss of memory happens to nearly all people as they grow older, so this so-called Alzheimer’s Disease is a trick by the medical profession. It’s just part of the normal loss of memory process.
archangel,
As for winning and losing. I don’t think the concept exists in LV. You might say the ’side’ that presents the most coherent and clinching arguments, and is best supported by obvious or cited evidence has ‘won’. But there is no arbiter or referee, or jury. So in a sense, winning would only be indicated by an admission of defeat. Again, you might say failure to respond is just that, ipso facto. However, sadly, it seldom if ever seems to be accompanied by any significant change of hearts and minds or opinions, which is what really matters. So I guess that what counts is what actually goes on in the big wide world outside, regardless. LV is only a tiny reflection of that.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
460. archangel -
as for the commenting climate here @ LV – no winners. no losers. but i do hope in some small way this is helping to prevent folks from going ‘postal’ at work or preventing domestic abuse..at least atm.
seems a much less consequential way of blowing off steam to rant and rave online than IRL. and altho i’ve been guilty of it in the past..it does not pay to be thin skinned about anything online. keep some sense of perspective.
this is cyberspace after all…not your actual life.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Cyn, (462),
“this is cyberspace after all…not your actual life.”
RU SHUUUUURE?
February 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
463. Anon -
behave or i’ll swat you!
DUDE!- read this article the other day about this being a hologram! really got my paranoid brain to reeling…so don’t get me started. got enough trouble holding onto whats left of my sanity as is. *shudder*
February 1st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
464. Cyn:…read this article the other day about this being a hologram!…
****
I read that too! I immediately dismissed it as ‘Through the Looking Glass’ b.s., and tossed it into my mental garbage can.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
465. segue -
well freaks me out
February 1st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
466. Cyn: You have every right to be freaked, creeped, weirded, and paranoided. I can disagree with you and still honor you (something I can’t do with idiots); but I mostly agree with you.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
467. segue -
). i read something like that and it does make me wonder.
the ability to respectfully disagree…apparently not something lotta folks around here are familiar w/ . heh..
but yeah. your point taken.
and i am just a bit odd in that way (lotta other ways too
what if there was something more going on? hhmm…? *cue eerie music*
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Cyn,
I know I’ve posted it elsewhere, but I still find this little Oz poem from ‘Lets Stalk Strine’ takes a lot of beating for the best test of reality I know. It’s from memory, so I con’t vouch for word-perfect:
Haggan yer tell if yer reely reel,
Or if yer only dreamin’?
Yer cuts orf the tip ov yer nearest toe,
And waits fer the sound of the screamin’
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 am
I should hastily add that I’ve never myself doubted I’m reely reel!
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Anon -
(in general terms 
)
but is it really me screaming or do i just think i’m screaming?
personally i think we are all psychotics locked up in padded rooms in some cyber produced loony bin..but then that’s just me. and yeah, my little friend Fred here. say hi to Fred.
he’s a multidimensional creature who morphs between being a Cheshire cat, yes! that cat and whatever best symbolizes what is annoying the hell of out of me at the moment. & atm..an asshat.
not you ofc Anon. you are a good reason for me to keep coming back here to ‘keep an eye on the store’.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
If I can help somebody, as I go on my way, then my living has not been in vain …
Yinky, donky, diddly doo,
A padded cage for me at the zoo,
Next to the one that’s reserved for you …
OK, yeah. I had a cute little teddy bear when a kid. He had real hair curls cut from a real golden blonde, maybe like Marilyn Monroe. And I Woz Only Three … Every time I got upset or some big bastard or grown-up I couldn’t hit back at got through to me, I beat fuck out of the poor little chap. Then I’d go into a deep guilt trauma. I cut him open once with a knife to find out how his squeak worked. My sweet Mum sewed him up. After that he went dumb. I wonder why? Eventually he went Eyeless in Gaza (appropriate current literary reference). He had such soulful, brown glass eyes too. My sweet Mum sewed in two piggy little blobs of black cotton instead. He got scabies and nearly became bald scratching himself. All that lovely Marilyn hair. But we’ve still got him. He’s a hallowed member of the family who enjoys a platonic relationship (do they exist any more?) with one of Anita’s dolls. So you see, despite, or perhaps because of all his screamin’, he’s reely reel.
P.S. Been trying to post this for hours, Think our system’s a-dozing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
472. Anon: I have a sock doll, with green sewn eyes to match my green eyes. It was made by a neighbor lady when I was 4. I, too, would take out my aggressions on that doll, when the children made fun of my accent (we had just moved to Australia), when I’d say I wanted to “go to the bathroom” and head to the outhouse, when I’d be included in parties only because the mum’s insisted…I discovered that my doll’s insides were cotton-wadding when I tore an arm off and my mum, like yours, sewed it back on.
Every time I ran away, certain I could find my way across the ocean without the need for a boat, the doll came with me. He was finally darned in so many places that little of the original material remained, but he was, and remains, a stalwart friend, as reely reel as your bear.
Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Wow… I wish I had such a companion too. All mine either died (the living ones) or were non-existent.
Personally, those stuff freaks me out too (holographic life, etc.). But when I come to a conclusion about it, it ends up not mattering how I am here, but only that I am here (yeah, tis a weird statement).
And alright, I guess in LV there is no such thing as winning a discussion.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
archangel, (474),
Yup, reality is what you think you are. What you are in your own head. (You do have one?)
I think, therefore I am. ‘Some menus’ (= Descartes?), or may we call him René?
When small I had non-existent friends too. But I stopped thinking about them. They were descarted. Hahaha.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Anon 475,
I can check for you, but I’m not quite sure whether I do have a head. xD
Oh I didn’t mean non-existent as in imaginary, but rather, as in there never were (sigh… there never were…). However, I have no qualms against imaginary friends. I guess I have one anyway, except he’s my brain (I’m the consciousness and he’s the brain). I know this definition is wrong, but it’s something rather… the mind is such a beautiful, mysterious thing after all.
And laughs, we managed to make this discussion off-topic. Apologies.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
segue,
Your green-eyed doll and our two should get together one day. I bet they’d end up relating true stories that would make Winnie-the-Pooh look pale fodder by comparison!
When people used to talk about “knocking the stuffing” out of somebody, it always made literal sense to me!
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
475. Anon:…(= Descartes?), or may we call him René?…
****
I always called him Renny. We were close.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
477. Anon: Your green-eyed doll and our two should get together one day.
****
I’ll be sure to bring him along in 25 mil. years.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
archangel, (476),
“… we managed to make this discussion off-topic.”
Thus we manage to keep reely reel, if not reely sane.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
478. segue -
you do that just to give me a giggle, don’t you?
Anon -
remember..sanity is highly over rated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
481. Cyn: you do that just to give me a giggle, don’t you?
****
mais qui, mon amis
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
480. Anon:…Thus we manage to keep reely reel, if not reely sane.
****
Sanity is highly overrated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Sanitized is highly underrated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
and sanition should be obligatory.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Have you ever counted how many people leave a public restroom without washing their hands? It simply amazes me.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
segue,
But think of it this way. They are saving the planet’s precious and dwindling water supply. Plus not causing unnecessary polluting energy by conserving those blow driers, or not dirtying towels that will then need washing, or not using throwaway paper ones. It’s an ill wind …
February 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
As long as they aren’t touching *my* food…
February 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
segue: I try not to touch anything, there are some pretty rank restrooms in my area. As far as not washing my hands. My nethers are probably the cleanest part of my body (a still remaining habit form my singles years). If I got a nasty feeling when I walked in I may very well wash my hands first!
Food handling? I never take chances, I’d like to keep whatever job I have.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
that stings guys… waiting moderation? ouch.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Crimanon, (489),
Reminds me of the joke on the walls of the porcelain room. Goes something like:
“Wash your hands first, the future of mankind will soon be held in them”
February 4th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
489. Crimanon:…there are some pretty rank restrooms in my area…
****
I have, in emergency situations, used mens rooms, and I must say that, bar none, they are disgusting! If it were possible , I would take a decon shower before leaving.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
A toilet wall in the music department of Adelaide University once had the series:
The future of mankind is in your hands.
…
The future is looking up!
…
Uh-oh, the future just came.
One day Descartes walked into a bar. The barman said “So, Rene, will you have a beer?”. Descartes said “I don’t think -” and disappeared.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Might the epitaph on his tombstone read:
‘René doesn’t think here any more’?
The name René is irresistable. Surely, astraya, the BBC comedy series about the Resistance, ‘Allo, ‘Allo, might mean something to you too? It’s a great favourite of Anita’s.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
494. Anon:…‘Allo, ‘Allo…
****
For some bizarre reason this reminds me of the way my mum answered the telephone,”Are you there?”
February 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
This afternoon, while out taking photos at one of the local beaches, I ran into a man, Paul Cathcart, who is an expert on algae. He had earlier given a speech at a nearby University, and was now letting his family have a weekend of fun.
We got to talking about global climate change and its affect on algae, and algae affect on the global food chain.
I asked him if I was right, if the top three or four inches of ocean heated up by two or three degrees world-wide, that it would be catastrophic.
Yes, he said, we would lose everything.
We talked for easily an hour. He wasn’t a harbinger of doom, just a man who knows that algae is the cornerstone of all life on the planet, and if the conditions on the planet become such that it will no longer support algae, we are doomed. It doesn’t have to be. He has all sorts of answers.
It was an amazing hour. Any doubts I had before, and I didn’t have many at all, were wiped away.
We are the only stewards this planet has, but we are not the only inhabitants. It’s up to us to save our selves, and all other living things.
The time is now.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
segue,
Could we but arrange for all the LV naysayers, then all the world’s naysayers and doubters, then all the world’s uninformed or indifferent to have an hour on with Paul Cathcart!
Cathcart (as well as Einstein) on the beach, perhaps?
February 27th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Wouldn’t that be fantastic! Cathcart and Einstein! Believe me, just talking with Cathcart was so eye-opening (even for one already on his side of the fence!) that it was beautiful.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
segue,
For my personal delectation, I’d add at least Nabokov. So MANY others, of course.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Nabokov for different eye-opening reasons, I agree, but then let us add as well, Anais Nin!
March 1st, 2009 at 9:57 am
We’re not going to stop, are we?!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
501. Anon: We’re not going to stop, are we?!
****
Simon says “No”
March 20th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Ok…I am on the fence for global warming…Part of me says its a myth and the other is saying it’s true. I am prepared and do my part…just in case. I have read the posts on this and see all of the facts…its just hard to grab onto, I guess.
btw…I heard that there was a different sort of biofuel made from algae. I saw it on the nature channel and it was interesting. I guess they tried to do this before, but Reagan stopped it when the oil prices started to go back to normal. It started up again about 2 years ago. If it works (meaning funding and approvals), then in 10 years it will replace oil.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
oouchan, (503),
Look for the aka ‘blue’ in the second of the recent famous scientists list. Read back a bit for his comments. He is involved in making biofuel from algae. Interesting. It’s all happening in LV!
March 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
504. Anon: I went there and took a look. It was interesting. After I saw that program I wanted to sign up for it as well. All that is needed are about a handful of 10 acre ‘farms’ to make enough fuel for the entire USA. It leaves almost no residue and is extremly safe. Not like crude oil or the like. It also is easier to make, takes less time and uses less space. Finally if there is a spill….way less damage is done.
I would love to see this happen in my life time.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:12 am
505. oouchan:…I would love to see this happen in my life time.
****
You will. A couple of months ago, I ran into a bioscientist at a local beach. He was in the area to speak at the University in the nearby city on algae as bio-fuel. He has a company devoted to the research and development of bio-fuels from algae.
We spoke at length about the benefits and how soon it would be possible to implement such a program on a wide enough basis to make a difference.
The only real problem, of course, is to be working on global climate change at the same time, because if we lose the oceans top two or three inches of algae to climate change, we lose everything.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
oouchan, (503),
“Ok…I am on the fence for global warming…Part of me says its a myth and the other is saying it’s true.”
If it’s a myth, life may be expected to stagger along on more or less its present course until that itself either eventually ends up naturally as stabilised, or somewhere less pleasant. But eventually.
If it’s true, human civilisation, or all of human life, or most to all terrestrial macro-ecosystems, or (but extremely unlikely) all life on earth, could go down the tube fairly quickly to very quickly, even by human historical standards (let alone by the standards of geological or biological time).
Awesome choice of options, huh?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
507. Anon…how about both options stink but I will take what I can get. No harm whatsoever if I prepare but don’t expect too much. I just want a nice place for my kid to live in.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
oouchan, (508),
Yup, I guess the realtivity of the two lies more in the degree of stink than owt else!
I think you’ve got your philosophy off to the best, most responsible and most realistic Tee there is. To that I would add: enjoy it while it’s here, and tell your kids to as well … just in case.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The earth goes through cooler stages and warmer stages. Its climate my vary somewhat, but I do not see evidence of “global warming” to be occuring. Whatever changes in climate the earth does indure…is not man-made. There’s been discussion about global warming on Mars! We have yet to find any humans there to screw up the climate, now do we? Unless Marvin the Martian was causing it all by himself…but I doubt it.
Also keep in mind, Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Tall Girl, (510),
“The earth goes through cooler stages and warmer stages. Its climate my vary somewhat, but I do not see evidence of “global warming” to be occuring. Whatever changes in climate the earth does indure…is not man-made.
Also keep in mind, Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician.”
You ARE a scientist then? Perhaps we might have your qualifications and relevant areas and periods of study.
If you are not a scientist, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us on what basis you are able to make dogmatic, unqualified statements on so vast, complex and multi-disciplined a subject.
If you are a scientist, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us on what basis you are able to make dogmatic, unqualified statements on so vast, complex and multi-disciplined a subject.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Oh, Anon, don’t you get it?
She’s *TALL*! She’s up there, with her nose up among the atmospheric clouds. She’s getting this stuff first hand.
How can we mere mortals, studies and degrees bedamned!, possibly take issue with someone who can speak from first-nose experience?
Please. Take hold of yourself. All you and I have is science and science and science.
How boring.
Let’s all ignore science! I think, to start, I’ll go let all the freon out of my refrigerator.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
segue,
But worst of all. We might actually be MISTAKEN (we hope), at least to some degree. Anyone who could possibly even admit to the teeniest, weeniest micro-nano-possibility they might be the teeniest, weeniest micro-nano-fraction wrong couldn’t possibly be RIGHT under any circumstances, could they (we)?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Anon,
If we’re mistaken, then no harm, no foul. We’ve made a pact with the earth to tread lightly, yo treat it with the respect it’s due, to protect the oceans, the land, the animals as if I very lives depended upon it (as they do). And if Global climate change is a fluke, all of our efforts have been for the good, anyway.
But, and this is key, Anon, we are NOT wrong.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:29 am
I completely agree with segue. Surely all the measures to combat global warming are good anyway? Reducing dependence on foreign oil sources, increasing fuel efficiency, setting up infrastructure for when fossil fuels do run out, maintaining biodiversity, increasing efficiency of agriculture. All of these are good things even if you think global warming is wrong
As segue so delicately (as always) put it: We are NOT wrong.
Yes the earth goes through climatic shifts, but using deep ice cores, sediment analysis and other atmospheric techniques, we know that when this happened in the past it was at a far far FAR slower rate. Obviously there used to be more CO2 in the atmosphere than today, how else was it incorporated into the plants that became our fossil fuels? But dumping this back into the air at this rate cannot be good – forget science, just common sense will do!
Also, let’s not forget that CO2 isnt the biggest criminal here, CH4 and other hydrocarbons are several orders of magnitude more efficient as greenhouse gases.
I am curious as to why people think they know better than scientists. Throughout LV I see this (food lists and evolution). Anecdotal evidence is inadmissable in the court of cym!
At the end of the day, when climate scientists are seriously thinking about geo-engineering our climate, we know they must be serious.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I love the way cym can make fun of me while agreeing with me. Takes real talent, that does.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Wel, practice makes perfect
March 25th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
segue & cymraegbachgen87, (514), (515),
I hear what you say, folks. But I also remind you of our belief in proper and cautious scientific methodolgy. (Which is not to deny urgency.)
Read what I said very carefully. My intention was that we should be prepared to admit that not all the assembled evidence will necessarily end up proving exactly what we suspect or believe. We must not simply say WE KNOW, as our dogmatic opponents consistently do. They, for example, also use false forecasts from our side and other rash, unfounded slivers of evidence, with Al Gore slung in like leavening to a cake mixture, to rubbish our ENTIRE edifice of concern.
It helps them to whistle in the dark.
Remember, and remember well the following:
ANY erroneous forecasting whatever in our concerns for the planet’s climate means that much better and safer a future. If we were to be proved entirely wrong (which we aren’t, as you rightly say), the best imaginable future for ourselves and the planet would be staring us in the face. (How good even that would actually be is still arguable!)
In any way at all that our opponents are wrong, the future is going to be so much worse. It could well be catastrophically worse. If they are completely wrong, HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT MAY WELL BE DOOMED. And, needless to say, doomed sooner rather than later.
I’m just reading an essentially unrelated book on the events that led up to 11 September, written by a high-ranking and long-standing insider in the war against terrorism. The frightening aspect of it is the sheer blithe ignorance of so many responsible ‘experts’ in so many areas. Prior information existed clearly to have stopped that particular atrocity, albeit if not all similar events. Equally alarming is the number of attacks that only failed by sheer wild luck, including presidential and papal bomb-assassinations.
But there is in fact a relationship between that book and this thread. Understanding the sources, organisation and threats posed by international terrorism, and how to analyse, combat and react to them is CHILD’S PLAY, MERE DUMMY SUCKING, compared with the unknown complexities of what is going on in the world’s interlocking and interacting climatic and natural systems right now. Yet you can read in this thread the sheer bravado of total ignorant indifference that envelops people. These are people we have to consider as among the more, bright, educated and intelligent on average of the planet to boot. I note here much the same attitudes I am reading about in many prior to 11 Sept … To them a large scale attack on U.S. home territory in nominal peacetime just didn’t even need considering, it was so patently absurd …
So yes, we three and those who think like us are right. Alarming climate changes are happening, and they are now considered by a majority of experts in relevant scientific disciplines to be critically influenced, if not entirely created by human activity. My national Chilean TV main news reminded me of that a few minutes ago.
What we don’t know, and probably cannot know until after events, is what the consequences are likely to be. Nor do we know either whether any natural cycle is playing a part in this, and if so what cycle and what part.
A way to shake up the experts of the anti-terrorism scene was to confront them, unknowing, with a set of catastrophic scenarios: biological, chemical and nuclear. Thanks to WW2 we know full well what the effect of even a primitive nuclear device would be on an American city. We know about plagues and such horrors. We have early cinematography of soldiers choking to death during gas attacks. But who has anything approaching the imagination required to envisage worst-case macro climate change? Even to consider one small but lethally terrible possibility: major crop failure? That’s the problem. Even the filmic blockbusters that have treated the subject seem like no more than unreal SF tales to us.
I read recently that a psychologist believes our reaction to such holistic possibilities draws on the same protective instincts that keep us sane in the face of knowledge of our own mortality. He (or she) noted that some of us face that reality and make such practical provisions as are healthily reasonable, while others prefer to pretend they are immortal, and a few sink into morbidity. The suggestion was that we are responding to our effect on the planet in the similar ways. It figures …
So let’s consider the first of those options. Healthy practical anticipation. If the U.S. had been prepared for the worst and invested seriously in anti-terrorism, as it was warned by various authorities, people might be alive today who are not. Would it then have been a waste of money had the attack not taken place? Is insurance money misspent when an accident doesn’t happen? Or a prudent precaution?
Can we learn? Will we learn?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
518. Anon
Whew!! That was quite a read! And quite possibly your longest fart I’ve read to date! That was in no way sarcastic or demeaning, btw. This is wildly offtopic and extremely anecdotal but I have no fear of the Welshman’s Hall of Justice.
During my obnoxiously intellectual phase, I wanted the ability to exert my intellectual prowess by being able to say I read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. So I hunkered down with the best-selling book and began to read. Roughly ten pages in, my inner monologue suddenly says “I want waffles!” Nearly another ten more pages go by and I think “No really, I want some waffles!” Needless to say, the book never went fully read but at least my waffle craving was satisfied.
The nonmoral of this nonstory? Your long-winded farts do not make me crave waffles.
They are quite entertaining. (sorry, Mr. Hawking)
March 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
gabi,
How could I deny being fart-far-fa-fla-flattered?
I have a worse Stephen Hawking story (does everybody have one?). I carted ‘A Short History…’ about with me from dentists’ waiting room to bank queue to vehicle testing centre, and it has somehow disappeared before being finished. It may yet turn up in some far-flung, light-year distant, corner of the house among the venemous corner spiders, who knows? (I hesitate to introduce the word ‘warp’ into the context as well: people tend to misinterpret it where I’m concerned.) Otherwise it’s on hold until our next visit to the U.K.
The human dimension of Mr Hawking appeals to me. Apart from his several cameos on the Simpsons (another topic), he and I are both avid ‘Private Eye’ readers (well, me when I’m in the U.K.)
You might be amused to know that writing long-winded farts induces a craving for Nestlé-Savoury’s stracciatella ice cream in this author … Mmmmmmmmmm … excuse me …
March 26th, 2009 at 10:38 am
STOP PRESS
Just found the Hawking while looking for something else today. Didn’t find the ’something else’!
March 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I have read, fully and completely, Hawkins A Brief History Of Time. I had to. My son was reading it for a class and, naturally, figured Mom had read it so he could discuss it with her and question her about it.
A quick trip to the book shop, an overnight cram session plus all of the next day, and it was read! Son and I have had some lovely conversations about the book. We both already had a lot of respect for Hawkins intellect, and son did his undergrad work at an American Uni where Hawkins came regularly, so son also met him about campus.
This is not the only book I have read because a kid of mine had to read a book for class, but it was the fastest I ever had to read one of such depth.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
PASSING READERS PLEASE NOTE
Later today, between 8 and 9 in the evening local time (I believe) a worldwise shutdown of non-vital power is planned as a symbolical demonstration against unnecessary contamination.
Even the likes of Coca Cola are said to be joining in. One hopes that is a genuine response and not merely to be sure to continue or to improve selling products to the eco-sensitive.
If you care, you might want to join in. Let’s hope those who are hostile to this Al-e-gore-cal gesture will at least refrain from cynically turning on more electricity.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:27 am
CHECK
Sorry, the Big Switch-off is 20.30 to 21.30 local time.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
For those unfamiliar with the 24 hour, or military, clock:
20.30 to 21.30 local time = 8:30 to 9:30 local time
Easy way to always remember how it works: Starting at 1 sec. after midnight =.01. Every hour until one p.m is counted exactly as normal. At one you begin the 24 hour clock with 13 hundred hours. All you are doing is adding the number of the “time” to twelve. It’s so simple a 2nd grader can do it.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
For the ‘climate change is a myth’ LV ostriches. Did you read the latest on-the-spot SCIENTIFIC reports in the last week of how permanent Antarctic shelves are disappearing faster than an ice lolly in a microwave? The report noted that all these types of observable change EVERYWHERE, including in the Arctic, are happening alarmingly faster and on a greater scale than was every anticipated or predicted by those working in the disciplines. The sand is deep and doesn’t melt, if you’d like to bury your heads down further.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Yes, Anon, I saw it. Frightening beyond measure.
I don’t think it will change the minds of the die-hards, but it may bring over a few on-the-fencers. Every little bit helps. Every act which reduces our carbon footprint helps.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Scientists ARGUE with Al Gore and he doesn’t want to hear the facts. He has no scientists supporting his theories, well unless he paid them to lie…that’s something a politician would do.
How about the global warming summit getting snowed out? This was a pretty heavy winter, I’m sure everyone would agree. Places that never see snow had snow this year. How does that prove global warming? Would any of the briliant “scientists” on this discussion like to explain that backwards logic. Here’s a tip for Al Gore and his followers…use a little common sense.
Al Gore uses this global warming myth to increase government control over the population and the economy. It’s a scheme, and millions of brainwashed sheep are falling for it.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You are making it sound as if global warming is an american problem!
What about the thousands of climate scientists outside the US who say the evidence points towards man made global warming? Did gore pay them too?
“How about the global warming summit getting snowed out? This was a pretty heavy winter, I’m sure everyone would agree. Places that never see snow had snow this year. How does that prove global warming?”
If you understood even the basics, you would know that global warming can cause cooling in local areas. For example, melting of the ice caps would upset the saline/fresh water balance of the gulf stream. This stream of warm water is what keeps britain realtively warm in winter, despite being on the same latitude as Moscow. If that shuts down, britain gets much MUCH colder in winter.
Use common sense? My dear lady, the climate is not something that can be dealt with using common sense. Many of its facets are contrary to common sense. Instead we need to use science and KNOWLEDGE to combat global warming.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
BTW, why did you put scientists as “scientists” ?
April 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
How is it that people think they can control the climate? Sure, don’t litter, recycle your cans, carpool…that’s all fine and good. But how does mankind contribute to global warming or stop it? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m looking for educated answers. Thanks guys.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
As of now, if we stopped all carbon emmissions today, the worlds’ climate would still become hotter.
How do we contribute to GW? That is a multi faceted answer but at its most basic:
Heat from the sun is trapped by our atmosphere. Although most is reflected back into space from the surface, some of the heat is trapped by so called greenhouse gases (such as methane and CO2) These gases are naturally occuring in the atmosphere and vital for our survival.
However, since the industrial revolution, man has been pumping billions upon billions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This means more heat from the sun is trapped on the planet, and less is radiated back into space.
Historically, the earth used to be much much warmer. In the cretaceous, global temperatures were about 4 degrees c higher than modern level. This was due to more CO2 naturally in the atmosphere (from volcanic activity);approx 6 times more co2 than pre-industrial level.
Over time this carbon was sequestered into plants. These plants (and the animals that ate them) eventually became our fossil fuels, and sealed off the carbon from the carbon cycle.
Burning these fossil fuels liberates all this carbon back into the atmosphere. It is common sense that if carbon levels return to that of the cretaceous, the temperature will also revert.
I’m not a climatologist so I apologise if that was poorly worded
April 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Very well written. Thanks for answering my question
cymraegbachgen87
April 10th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
cym, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t the scientists studying this problem of global warming, now referring to it as global climate change? It seems to make more sense for a lot of people who see different effects, and in fact, a warmer climate in one place will cause a colder climate somewhere else…to everyone’s displeasure.
I’m not a climatologist, either. I live a very green life. My village is probably the green capital of the U.S. (but is too small to count), but if everybody, and I mean everybody, worked at living green, at leaving the smallest possible carbon footprint on the planet, we could make a difference.
But would it be soon enough?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
528. Tall Girl -
- Scientists ARGUE with Al Gore and he doesn’t want to hear the facts.
How about the global warming summit getting snowed out? -
You accuse Gore of dishonesty but you pull the truly dishonest kneejerk stunt that’s the trademark of your kind. Although the scientific world has moved on and changed the definition to “climate change”, you idiots must stick to “global warming” like chewing gum to a boot. You can’t change it because all your desperately pathetic arguments hang on it. Science? You lot wouldn’t recognise that guiding light if it came up and kicked you in the ass!
July 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Very nice site!
July 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I don’t know who to believe about global warming anymore. There seems to be plenty of scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. On one hand, it seems hard to argue with the fact that many parts of the planet are actually getting cooler and that the average temperature of Earth was higher in the middle ages than it was now. However, it seems naive to think that man can do to the planet what we have done and not cause any damage at all. To me ,the question is not whether global warming is happening, but how big a deal it actually is. I think Al Gore has blown it out of proportion, but I do my part to protect the environment like any good citizen should. Even if you don’t believe that global warming is happening, that does not give you the right to destroy the environment.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Three words: Medieval Warm Period.
The earth cools; the earth warms. There’s not a damn thing we can do about it except turn up the furnace or the air conditioner as conditions dictate.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Heroes still beats every other show out there.