News Global warming a greater threat than terrorism

[Ivan Seeking]

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Global warming poses a greater long-term threat to humanity than terrorism because it could force hundreds of millions from their homes and trigger an economic catastrophe, Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson said.[continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/05/canada.environment.reut/index.html

 

[master_coda]

Well obviously your view of this depends on you accepting global warming. If you don't believe in it, then this is just fearmongering. If you do believe in it, this is clearly quite true.

 

[member 5645]

That's because we are getting off our ass to minimize the long term threat of terrorism

 

[Mattius_]

You cannot accept global warming? gimme a break, it is beginning to happen all over the world, its hard to fight against clear hard facts... Do you also deny evolution?

To ivan, yes, it is also funny that more people innocent people die by muggings every year than had died in the world trade centers... every year 25 million die of starvation, and yet it makes front page news when a 14 year old girl is kidnapped...

You see, the media won't give news coverage of threats unless it is scandalous,bloody, and appalling.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
You cannot accept global warming? gimme a break, it is beginning to happen all over the world, its hard to fight against clear hard facts... Do you also deny evolution?

To ivan, yes, it is also funny that more people innocent people die by muggings every year than had died in the world trade centers... every year 25 million die of starvation, and yet it makes front page news when a 14 year old girl is kidnapped...

You see, the media won't give news coverage of threats unless it is scandalous,bloody, and appalling.

1> Prove Global Warming to me then :) Helly, Prove Evolution as well! Just because you believe it, doesn't mean everyone does. What is fantastic, is the scientist developing these theories admit just that...they are THEORIES. Somehow, layman like yourself make the law.

2> Maybe we should just turn our attention to muggings then! We'll stop that, and just let the planes continute to fly into buildings?
The difference is, showing starvation on Television doesn't do anything to fix it. Showing a girl who was JUST kidnapped in an attempt to save her life DOES.

3> So the continued coverage of the democrats' race is in that category? Perhaps then you are explaining that things aren't so bad in Iraq, but the Media is simply showing things that only fit in that category?

 

[Mattius_]

Ofcourse nothing is fact, but we should be so indecisive in our thoughts that nothing ever gets done? Evolution isn't 'fact' the but thought of following anything else right now is FOOLISH. Give me another theory which is better, yea, I didnt think so.

Ill repeat, nothing is fact, but it is our job, as leaders, to use discretion in choosing which theory to follow, (evolution being the strongest of them) and to make judgement calls to the best of our ability.

So, let's wait and see if global warming is true shall we? Let's wait until millions die from global warming compounded with malthusian prophecys. Lets!

ORRRRRRR, we can use the STRONG EVIDENCE that we have right now and make the BEST JUDGEMENT CALL possible.

Would you like some charts of this evidence?, because i have plenty.

 

[Zurtex]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That's because we are getting off our ass to minimize the long term threat of terrorism

How come since Bush started his "war on terror" has the terrorist threat to the world never been greater then? As well as it seems to be growing at a greater rate than it ever has done.

 

[Zero]

In reality, global warming is the generally accepted scientific principle, and the majority of people against it have financial incentive to do so. In addition, the greenhouse gasses are also responsible to general pollution hazards, and should be restricted anyway.

 

[Mattius_]

I would much rather let planes fly into buildings on a small scale then to allow other more important domestic values be washed down the drain.

I guess we have different ideas of cost/effect. Your idea is that we should go to war and spend billions in tax money, hundreds of american lives, and wear out international support, then to address domestic handicaps which can be fixed, in my opinion, more easily.

You come here and talk to me about this election year? HAHAHA, when was the last time an election was about the issues?! The media smears commercialism all over democracy, and you call that quality?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zurtex
How come since Bush started his "war on terror" has the terrorist threat to the world never been greater then? As well as it seems to be growing at a greater rate than it ever has done.

Terrorist threat never been greater? Show me evidence of the subjective statement you just made.
"Seems to be growing" - again, show me this!

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
1>I would much rather let planes fly into buildings on a small scale then to allow other more important domestic values be washed down the drain.

2>I guess we have different ideas of cost/effect. Your idea is that we should go to war and spend billions in tax money, hundreds of american lives, and wear out international support, then to address domestic handicaps which can be fixed, in my opinion, more easily.

3>You come here and talk to me about this election year? HAHAHA, when was the last time an election was about the issues?! The media smears commercialism all over democracy, and you call that quality?

1> That's a pretty been step you just made from rationalizing that we are wasting time on terrorism because muggings are a greater threat. Try to keep on track here and not start changing your original point.

2> Nice job putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort, and you are simply jumping to conclusions. Believe it or not, I agree that we have domestic issues to take care of, but do you just rationalize a problem away by pointing at other problems too? Iraq has many more implications than just the direct threat of Saddam personally launching an attack anywhere.

3>I have no clue what this is in reference to. Is this about the media? Stop changing your point. You set out a list of criteria that I questioned you about. You still didn't answer with anything more than rheroric.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_


Would you like some charts of this evidence?, because i have plenty.

I've already asked for them.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
In reality, global warming is the generally accepted scientific principle, and the majority of people against it have financial incentive to do so.

In addition, the greenhouse gasses are also responsible to general pollution hazards, and should be restricted anyway.

This may be true, but much of the theory was flawed and has been adapted to fit our current model. How much further does it need to be adjusted to be proven is one question.
Another questions is that of solutions. Things like forcing countries to plant X number of trees based upon output is worthless.
Thus far, all solutions to a theory that hasn't remained consistent on the scientific front are arbitrary to say the least.

As for financial incentive, we are those people. THE UNITED STATES is those people. Include developing nations in a global pact for pollution control and you will have cooperation. The unfair act of penalizing only those that are arbitrarily decided to be "developed" is a major hold up for me supporting any such bill.

This I do agree with. The pollution hazards would be a perfectly fine candidate for people to look to. Unfortunately, instead we put forward an evolving theory of something that MIGHT happen to SOME places between now and the next 10,000 years. This isn't the kind of 'proof' that gets action ;)

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
1>Ofcourse nothing is fact, but we should be so indecisive in our thoughts that nothing ever gets done? Evolution isn't 'fact' the but thought of following anything else right now is FOOLISH. Give me another theory which is better, yea, I didnt think so.

2>Ill repeat, nothing is fact, but it is our job, as leaders, to use discretion in choosing which theory to follow, (evolution being the strongest of them) and to make judgement calls to the best of our ability.

3>So, let's wait and see if global warming is true shall we? Let's wait until millions die from global warming compounded with malthusian prophecys. Lets!

4>ORRRRRRR, we can use the STRONG EVIDENCE that we have right now and make the BEST JUDGEMENT CALL possible.

1>Well that changes things, since you just said it was clear hard facts.
Evolution is proven no further than scientology's assessment that we were put here by aliens. In fact, I'm just going to outright say that it is more likely aliens brought us here, than evolution happening. Afterall, aliens would explain all gaps in our history of the world :)
I guess I'm just 'FOOLISH' for not following anything you say.

2>I'm glad you repeat that again :)
I agree.
3>Or we can assume global warming is true, and that it IS manmade, and that if we go back to living like cavemen it'll all be fixed. Sure would be a shame if that weren't the case.
4>Why is the best judgement call all of the mainstream solutions for dealing with global warming? (ie, the kyoto agreement)

 

[Mattius_]

1> That's a pretty been step you just made from rationalizing that we are wasting time on terrorism because muggings are a greater threat. Try to keep on track here and not start changing your original point.

1. The example i pointed out was only an example. I was getting at the root of the problem, which is that the media gives very off-value reports of what is a threat to the american people.

2.

2> Nice job putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort, and you are simply jumping to conclusions. Believe it or not, I agree that we have domestic issues to take care of, but do you just rationalize a problem away by pointing at other problems too? Iraq has many more implications than just the direct threat of Saddam personally launching an attack anywhere.

That is a whole other debate...

3>I have no clue what this is in reference to. Is this about the media? Stop changing your point. You set out a list of criteria that I questioned you about. You still didn't answer with anything more than rheroric.

You Said,

3> So the continued coverage of the democrats' race is in that category?

3. You implied that the media covers something other than scandalous, bloody, or appalling events, and I then stated that the election coverage performed by the media has nothing to do with the issues anymore, showing that the paticular instance of something outside of the scandalous, bloody, and appalling was still far short of quality.


But your right, let's stick with global warming here, out of a variety of solutions, 2 have emerged to be agreed on. First, move to alternative sources of energy. Denmark derives 13% of its energy from alt. energy, primarily wind. Dupont has agreed to by the year 2010 achieve 10% of its power from alternative sources.

Second, pump liquid/solid carbon dioxide into carbon sinks(depleted natural gas cavities in the Earth's surface) which would then sit in the ground for millions of years without causing any environmental problems at all.

Both are costly, but the kyoto accords are in the process of being passed which mandates that every developed country in the world reduce its C02 emmisions by x% of its Gross Domestic Product. It is likely that the Bush administration will sign it, and if not, the next administration will.

In conclusion, nations are prepared to confront this issue and pay the cost, but the question now is if it is too late. Polar bear populations are already declining because the ice no longer freezes during the winter which inhibits the bears from traveling to hunting grounds. The predicted rise in tempereture of the world in the last century has been just over 1 degree, and I am sure you have all heard about the iceberg the size of new jersey cracking off of antarctica.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_


Both are costly, but the kyoto accords are in the process of being passed which mandates that every developed country in the world reduce its C02 emmisions by x% of its Gross Domestic Product. It is likely that the Bush administration will sign it, and if not, the next administration will..

Hate to burst your bubble,but Bush is the one who removed us from the protocol,and without Russia signing, we can't be forced into it.

This is, unless you know something about this recently that I don't, and then could you link me so I can read??

Secondly, do you not believe that countries like China, that are considered developing, get a unfair handicap to compete against us? With the exception of human rights, they ARE a developed nation.

 

[Mattius_]

I guess I'm just 'FOOLISH' for not following anything you say.

No, you arent foolish because you disagree with what I say, you are foolish because you disagree with overwhelming circumstancial evidence that has been presented to the debate.

 

[Mattius_]

bed time now, ill give you your evidence later, sorry i have to leave...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Terrorist threat never been greater? Show me evidence of the subjective statement you just made.
"Seems to be growing" - again, show me this!

Why not? It is the logical consequence of bombings, increased American presense, and the removal of the stabilizing factor in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
This may be true, but much of the theory was flawed and has been adapted to fit our current model. How much further does it need to be adjusted to be proven is one question.
Another questions is that of solutions. Things like forcing countries to plant X number of trees based upon output is worthless.
Thus far, all solutions to a theory that hasn't remained consistent on the scientific front are arbitrary to say the least.

As for financial incentive, we are those people. THE UNITED STATES is those people. Include developing nations in a global pact for pollution control and you will have cooperation. The unfair act of penalizing only those that are arbitrarily decided to be "developed" is a major hold up for me supporting any such bill.

This I do agree with. The pollution hazards would be a perfectly fine candidate for people to look to. Unfortunately, instead we put forward an evolving theory of something that MIGHT happen to SOME places between now and the next 10,000 years. This isn't the kind of 'proof' that gets action ;)

You obviously aren't too familiar with how science works. Plus, you seem to think that anyone should care about the economics first, which is what we expect from you, but it is still wrong.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Why not? It is the logical consequence of bombings, increased American presense, and the removal of the stabilizing factor in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Is this entire sentence pertaining to just Iraq?
Firstly, the statement was about the world. If you consider Iraq to be the make or break terrorist catalyst, then we've got a whole new problem.

With such media attention, I suggest that it is easy to view the world as riddled with more terrorism than ever before. With focus on an issue, rather than a blind eye, I also suggest that it's easy to feel as if there's a larger terrorist threat than before. However, I have seen no such numbers showing that this is the case.
The "war on terror" started technically just after 9/11.

Since then, we have seen the following notable attacks (obviously pipe bombs are going off somewhere in the world and not making news):

Japanese fire bombing on the train.
Bali Bombing
Kenyan Hotel Bombings
Israeli suicide attacks
Iraqi car bombs
Afganistan Car bombs
Chechyn rebels
misc rebels throughout the rest of the world

Now, I could pull up numbers for each of those to gain the number of bombings, but I don't think that is neeeded.

I'll start with this list.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/terrorhistory.htm
That is simply major attacks on United States interests! Not even the world.

The implication in the original post, Zero, was that Bush's war on terror was INCREASING terror. We can obviously remove the Kenyan HOtel Bombings and Israeli suicide atttacks from our criteria then. They are all directed at Israel, and are not even at their highest points ever (once can conclude they are not caused by Bush, but rather the Israel/Palestine conflict). The rebels were fighting before and after 9/11 and are still fighting for the same causes. You can't just unload rebel groups onto Bush.

That leaves us with the remainder of the list as possible results of engaging terrorism.

This is where I hand the ball off to the rest of you for 3 answers:

1>How do we know these are a result of Bush and not 9/11 acting as a catalyst for festering extremist islam?
2>Show me that these attacks are more numerous than any other 2.5 year period before (the 80's alone were a very interesting time)
3>Show me where the terrorist threat is growing,and how that is directyl related to Bush and not other countries lack of action in their own backyards.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
You obviously aren't too familiar with how science works. Plus, you seem to think that anyone should care about the economics first, which is what we expect from you, but it is still wrong.

I'm quite familiar with how science works. My point is that implementing costly, worthless programs before picking a cause (and how that cause actually can be effected) is just what I said...worthless.
The Global warming models spread entirely too far to pick a direction and run with it right now. We need a global direction that works - unlike the hilarious tree planting routine of the late 90's.

Secondly, you are wrong. I care about the ability to continue life first. Following that, I care about the best course of action to do that, without putting my lifestyle, or my childrens, in a lower than needed state to accompolish that goal.
I will not sacrifice all that we have built for whim of a solution that is not exacted evenly across the world.

 

[Zurtex]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Terrorist threat never been greater? Show me evidence of the subjective statement you just made.
"Seems to be growing" - again, show me this!

I thought shortly after putting my post up I'd get asked that question.
I've seen good evidence supporting what I said, give me a little time to find it.

But by all means is there any proof Bush's actions is solving the problem?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zurtex
I thought shortly after putting my post up I'd get asked that question.
I've seen good evidence supporting what I said, give me a little time to find it.

But by all means is there any proof Bush's actions is solving the problem?

I'd appreciate you doing that


Very fair question - personally, I do believe that more needs to be done. The simple fact that leaders of terrorist groups ARE being captured, says that something is being done in the right direction.
I would like to see better diplomacy with getting other nations on board... If we had a longer timeline I'd be better able to answer the question. We've had 2.5 years of no attacks causing a loss of life on our soil since the anthrax attacks (another thread, but does anyone have up to date info on this??). If in the end we manage to get a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, we have made progress. If not, history will show the failure this all was.

 

[FZ+]

The simple fact that leaders of terrorist groups ARE being captured, says that something is being done in the right direction.

If Saddam was single-handedly flying planes into tall buildings, then I would agree. But instead, this reminds me of Vietnam-esque kill ratios all over again.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that the strategy of force is effective in decreasing terrorist activity. Historically, such an exercise has never succeeded, and according to intelligence agencies, the threat from terrorism has in fact increased in Israel, Iraq, the UK, the US, Russia and so on where such a strategy has been employed. Intelligence is also clear that a decrease in US activity is due to an effort on the side of the terrorists to consolidate support amongst external populations. And people are as scared as before. Something is being done, definitely. But there is nothing at all to suggest that it is in the correct direction.

 

[Mattius_]

Today, US forces received intercepted a letter from one of the top Iraqi terrorist leader, wanted in some 60some car bombings?) which stated that the US forces had 'suffocated' many of his major efforts to attack coalition forces. I remember reading a letter from Bin-Laden months ago stating the same type of thing. Maybe our efforts are working?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by FZ+
If Saddam was single-handedly flying planes into tall buildings, then I would agree. But instead, this reminds me of Vietnam-esque kill ratios all over again.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that the strategy of force is effective in decreasing terrorist activity. Historically, such an exercise has never succeeded, and according to intelligence agencies, the threat from terrorism has in fact increased in Israel, Iraq, the UK, the US, Russia and so on where such a strategy has been employed. Intelligence is also clear that a decrease in US activity is due to an effort on the side of the terrorists to consolidate support amongst external populations. And people are as scared as before. Something is being done, definitely. But there is nothing at all to suggest that it is in the correct direction.

Who said I was speaking about Saddam?? I'd start naming the list of names, but a google search will give you the list better than me trying to remember what comes after "Sheik Muhammad..."

And on the contrary, I'm still waiting to see the proof that it is an increase.

 

[wasteofo2]

Phatmonkey, I don't know if you've been provided with evidence of global warming yet, here's some from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of our government

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Incase you don't feel like reading through both of them, here are some key points within the website.

"Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast."
-EPA


http://users.erols.com/jtitus/Holding/NRJ.html

"This article from the 1991 volume of the journal Coastal Management is the source of the widely quoted estimate that a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 7000 square miles (an area the size of Massachusetts), eliminate 50-80 percent of U.S. wetlands, and cost the nation over $100 billion in construction costs (over $200 billion if one includes the value of lost wetlands.) The study was originally part of an EPA Report to Congress on the effects of global climate change. It also includes state-specific estimates for beach-nourishment costs, and regional estimates for the loss of wetlands and dry land, assuming that global sea level rises 50, 100, or 200 cm." - http://users.erols.com/jtitus/

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Phatmonkey, I don't know if you've been provided with evidence of global warming yet, here's some from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of our government

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Incase you don't feel like reading through both of them, here are some key points within the website.

"Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast."
-EPA


http://users.erols.com/jtitus/Holding/NRJ.html

"This article from the 1991 volume of the journal Coastal Management is the source of the widely quoted estimate that a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 7000 square miles (an area the size of Massachusetts), eliminate 50-80 percent of U.S. wetlands, and cost the nation over $100 billion in construction costs (over $200 billion if one includes the value of lost wetlands.) The study was originally part of an EPA Report to Congress on the effects of global climate change. It also includes state-specific estimates for beach-nourishment costs, and regional estimates for the loss of wetlands and dry land, assuming that global sea level rises 50, 100, or 200 cm." - http://users.erols.com/jtitus/

I've read studies mentioning similar numbers. But every person I've spoken with, including a Ecologist who used to work for the EPA says that there is no proof that any change we make can stop this. There is still plenty of models that say this is a natural progression that we cannot control.
I'm all for cutting pollution, but I'd like to see some proven reasonings that have been proven elsewhere(ie lung cancer, birth defects, asthma, bronchial infections ). We must all admit that it would take a significant amount of change to do what the Kyoto alone requires, let alone what many of these computer models suggest to stop something we dont' even know is capable of being stopped.

Look, I'm not advocating turning a bling eye to this all - simply, I'm saying that people on here, and elsewhere, who label everyone 'foolish' for not immediately hopping on board are moving at a kneejerk pace.

I appreciate the site, but how do we account for the countless models that say otherwise? How do we account for the cooling of some areas and the warming of others (when original global warming called for an entire warming of all areas)? Do we have the right culrpit?

 

[member 5645]

How does one disgard things like this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

Data provided for the study referenced in the article above - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
How does one disgard things like this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

Data provided for the study referenced in the article above - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

That's easy...the 'researchers' involved in that paper are a geologist and an economist. The "study" was done for a "journal" with a specific anti-global warming bias. It is basically a political and economic journal with scientific trappings, created to push the energy industry's POV.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
That's easy...the 'researchers' involved in that paper are a geologist and an economist. The "study" was done for a "journal" with a specific anti-global warming bias. It is basically a political and economic journal with scientific trappings, created to push the energy industry's POV.

Can you go through their science and prove it wrong? I can't! Nor can I go through the pro global warming science and prove it right or wrong. The fact is, you guys are hopping on the bandwagon because you want to. Any scientist in here that can put this all in English?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Can you go through their science and prove it wrong? I can't! Nor can I go through the pro global warming science and prove it right or wrong. The fact is, you guys are hopping on the bandwagon because you want to. Any scientist in here that can put this all in English?

Nice retreat...if it is so obvious that global warming is fake, why is it that mainly crackpots, unqualified economists, and industry groups are saying so? There isn't an organized anti-industry group creating data to support global warming, but there are pro-industry groups who misinterpret the work of real scientists in order to confuse or support people who really think that short-term economic concerns matter more than long term environmental or health concerns.

 

[Zero]

Basically, phatmonkey, by admitting to have no understanding of teh science involved, in my eyes you just admitted that you are fishing for anything that supports your position on the economics of the situation.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Nice retreat...if it is so obvious that global warming is fake, why is it that mainly crackpots, unqualified economists, and industry groups are saying so? There isn't an organized anti-industry group creating data to support global warming, but there are pro-industry groups who misinterpret the work of real scientists in order to confuse or support people who really think that short-term economic concerns matter more than long term environmental or health concerns.

Retreat? Not by anymeans. This is the same point I've been making since the beginning of the thread. Questioning global warming doesn't mean I ruled it out
crackpots? unqualified economists? industry groups? Unlike the non crack pot, qualified scientists, that proposed we start planting trees to make up for our C02 output?? That was found to be scientifically flawed and wouldn't work! At the time, we had UN meetings about this though!

Again I ask, how are you so qualified to make that assertion? Somehow a differing idea about a THEORY is automatically wrong? I'm amazed to find this on this board of all places.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Basically, phatmonkey, by admitting to have no understanding of teh science involved, in my eyes you just admitted that you are fishing for anything that supports your position on the economics of the situation.

I'm fishing for the reason you all are so quick believe something, and then chastize those who ask for more proof, who ask why there are so many datasets...and looking for an answer besides "the ones that go against my belief are made by evil corporations".
I hardly said I had no understanding. I simply can't prove it right or wrong, just like the scientist wiht PHD's.


Edit - not to mention that you refused to answer my question regarding YOUR ability to go through the posted data. I'm assuming that's a 'No, I can't'??

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I'm fishing for the reason you all are so quick believe something, and then chastize those who ask for more proof, who ask why there are so many datasets...and looking for an answer besides "the ones that go against my belief are made by evil corporations".
I hardly said I had no understanding. I simply can't prove it right or wrong, just like the scientist wiht PHD's.


Edit - not to mention that you refused to answer my question regarding YOUR ability to go through the posted data. I'm assuming that's a 'No, I can't'??

Let me ask you this: do you believe that the vast majority of scientists who actually work in the environmental sciences, actually believe that global warming is happening?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
How does one disgard things like this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

Data provided for the study referenced in the article above - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Obviously, they are Canadian and want global warming to happen!

You're never going to be able to point to a single flaw and say "Ah ha!" with a statistical argument. Comparing the relative merits of arguments for or against global warming is a full time job that the vast majority of people are not equipped to perform. We are essentially in a pseudo religious situation. We are stuck listening to the sermons of each side and deciding in whom to put our faith. I have less faith in those who have a financial stake in the results. Corporate officers are required by law to act in the best financial interests of their stockholders. Sponsoring false scientific research could easily be construed not as just a dirty trick, but as a legally necessary action to protect stockholders. The other side is not without motivations for deceit either, but they are the lesser motives of doomsayers and gloryhounds.

In either case, the popularizers on both sides seem to be much more strident than the researchers. What researchers are saying tends to be more boring than "Global warming apocalypse" or "Global warming hoax". I hear from researchers that global warming is real. It corresponds to man-made CO2 production, but is not necessarily attributable to it. Current rates of global warming are not yet at a disastrous pace. The meta-stable nature of climate in models is a concern though.

Njorl

 

[Pergatory]

I just read this thread for the first time and I have to stay I'm astonished at the closed-mindedness in this thread. Phatmonky seems to be the only one here in pursuit of true knowledge. Everyone else just seems to be serving their own agenda. All I see are people side-stepping the issue, putting words into his mouth, and personal assaults on his sources. The fact is that nobody KNOWS global warming is a problem, but everyone still claims it as fact. How can this be?

Consider how much weather data has actually been collected involving our past? Consider the extremes of weather our planet has experienced in the past? Nature is constantly changing yet always in balance, it cannot be otherwise, that's the beauty of nature. To assume that because temperatures appear to be rising on the short-term scale, that they will continue to rise until all life dissappears, is similar logic to finding a Bible and declaring that there is a God. We don't know the cause, we don't understand the climate system, we shouldn't pretend to.

Now, just as phatmonky, I'm not saying global warming is a non-issue. In fact I think it deserves a great deal of attention because if it IS a problem, then time is of the essence. What I am saying is that we shouldn't jump heads-first into the solution without proper analysis of the problem. Otherwise we'll simply find ourselves deeper into another problem. Do you not agree?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Njorl


In either case, the popularizers on both sides seem to be much more strident than the researchers. What researchers are saying tends to be more boring than "Global warming apocalypse" or "Global warming hoax". I hear from researchers that global warming is real. It corresponds to man-made CO2 production, but is not necessarily attributable to it. Current rates of global warming are not yet at a disastrous pace. The meta-stable nature of climate in models is a concern though.

Njorl

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Add to that information the fact that greenhouse gasses are also common-variety pollutants, and you have a case for reducing their output, regardless of a "global warming apocalypse".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pergatory
I just read this thread for the first time and I have to stay I'm astonished at the closed-mindedness in this thread. Phatmonky seems to be the only one here in pursuit of true knowledge. Everyone else just seems to be serving their own agenda. All I see are people side-stepping the issue, putting words into his mouth, and personal assaults on his sources. The fact is that nobody KNOWS global warming is a problem, but everyone still claims it as fact. How can this be?

Consider how much weather data has actually been collected involving our past? Consider the extremes of weather our planet has experienced in the past? Nature is constantly changing yet always in balance, it cannot be otherwise, that's the beauty of nature. To assume that because temperatures appear to be rising on the short-term scale, that they will continue to rise until all life dissappears, is similar logic to finding a Bible and declaring that there is a God. We don't know the cause, we don't understand the climate system, we shouldn't pretend to.

Now, just as phatmonky, I'm not saying global warming is a non-issue. In fact I think it deserves a great deal of attention because if it IS a problem, then time is of the essence. What I am saying is that we shouldn't jump heads-first into the solution without proper analysis of the problem. Otherwise we'll simply find ourselves deeper into another problem. Do you not agree?

Don't discredit yourself by using the "close-minded" argument...picking the less credible side of an argument isn't a sign that you are open-minded, it is a sign that you are willing to ignore the best evidence available.

I would like for you to tell me what problem could be created by reducing pollution.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't discredit yourself by using the "close-minded" argument...picking the less credible side of an argument isn't a sign that you are open-minded, it is a sign that you are willing to ignore the best evidence available.

I would like for you to tell me what problem could be created by reducing pollution.

I didn't "use the closed-minded" argument, I merely pointed it out because I think it's an unhealthy view. It was in fact entirely separate from my argument. As far as the "best evidence avialable" our evidence on either side is paltry at best, and the "evidence" on one side is only made "best" in your eyes.

Speaking of which, I agree that reducing pollution is a good thing, but we don't seem to know exactly what pollution is. Sure there are obvious ones, carbon monoxide for example. However, who's to say that if we keep generating carbon monoxide, some species of Earth won't evolve so as to consume carbon monoxide? Who's to say they haven't already, and that by stopping production we are "tricking" evolution and dooming entire species? Ok so that's an extreme example, I'm just using it to carry my point that we can't assume we know what's best until we at least understand the affected systems. I ask again, do you not agree?

If what you're arguing is that pollution should be reduced, rather than global warming being stopped, then that's a different issue entirely. Here we seem to be debating global warming and the idea that it is a "greater threat than terrorism." The general mood conveyed from this entire thread screams FUD, and that alone is enough to make me skeptical.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Zero

I would like for you to tell me what problem could be created by reducing pollution.

Rapid and significant pollution reduction would require, more than anything else, sharp reduction of energy usage. This would certainly cause significant economic destabilisation. While I'm sure there are lots of wasteful pactices that we could eliminate to save energy, we won't do it that way. It is primarily capitalist societies that have high per capita energy usage. In these societies, while the total greenhouse output might be decided by treaty, the individual outputs will be determined by market forces. The luxury to pollute will be purchased by the wealthy. The wealthy will use their pollution allotments as frivolously as they use their money. The poor will bear the burden of yet one more expense. The added expense of greenhouse reduction will surely cause or contribute to worldwide recessions. Recessions dramatically increase crime and unemployment within a country and increase tensions between countries.

I'm not saying this is a reason to never face the facts of global warming. As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of "when", not "if". If we have a suitable safety margin for delaying action until such a time as we are more technologically and economically capable of dealing with it, we should delay. If such a delay is not safe, we should bite the bullet and crack down on greenhouse gas production. Considering the stakes, we should err on the side of caution (climatic caution, not economic caution), but we should not act against our own interests out of paranoid fear.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Well...I am not suggesting that we scrap all our cars over this, but I would think that the global warming issue, the polution issue, and the general oil dependancy issue should all be worked on proactively. If there is a marginal blow to the industrial sector, so be it. We used to be willing to make sacrifices for the common good, and we should be willing to do so again.

 

[ray b]

Originally posted by Zero
Let me ask you this: do you believe that the vast majority of scientists who actually work in the environmental sciences, actually believe that global warming is happening?

the one who are awake YES
your copy of Scientific American late this month?
page 68