News Global warming a greater threat than terrorism

Today, US forces recieved 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?
 
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.
 
464
1
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 [Broken]

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 [Broken]

"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/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 [Broken]

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 [Broken]

"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/ [Broken]
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

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.
 
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? :smile:
 
Z

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? :smile:
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.
 
Z

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.
 
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.
 
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'??
 
Last edited:
Z

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

Science Advisor
245
10
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! :wink:

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
 
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?
 
Z

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, irregardless of a "global warming apocalypse".
 
Z

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.
 
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

Science Advisor
245
10
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
 
Z

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.
 
173
0
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
 

Related Threads for: Global warming a greater threat than terrorism

Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
V
Replies
1
Views
284
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top