News Is Global Warming a Swindle?

[Mallignamius]

As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?

 

[turbo]

As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?

It would be nice if more people would embrace this approach. I care about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, but the question does not play into my dedication to reducing my impact on contamination/pollution. Maine is an exporter of electricity, most of which is produced by hydro power. That does not allow me the luxury of wasting electricity so that some coal-fired plant in Ohio will take up the slack and pollute my air with ozones and my fishing waters with acids and heavy metals.

 

[ShawnD]

As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?

What you're saying makes sense, but the argument is that global warming is caused by something that isn't even a pollutant - carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous, it does not cause acid rain, it is required for plants to survive, and you are releasing CO2 as you read this.

Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true, it's getting too much attention. Earth's temperature increasing less than 1 degree C over 100 years, reaching temperatures that the Earth has historically reached (Medieval Warm Period), is not a big deal, yet global warming is all we hear about. Contrast that with something that is a big deal, such as arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and India. This truly is an environmental problem, and you've probably never heard of it.
You can probably guess which one I think is a bigger priority.

 

[ShawnD]

That does not allow me the luxury of wasting electricity so that some coal-fired plant in Ohio will take up the slack and pollute my air with ozones and my fishing waters with acids and heavy metals.

Ozone is not a pollutant. In fact, ozone is probably the only reason you do not get skin cancer after spending a few hours in the sun every day during summer. Ozone blocks all UV-C rays and most UV-B rays.

Ozone is also a popular way of sanitizing things and removing smells. Putting ozone in water kills most bacteria because it's similar to using hydrogen peroxide, and that same radical reaction mechanism can be used to destroy organic molecules that cause odor. You know that "ozone smell" the http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview/sku__SI724GRY creates? That really is ozone, and it's generally not poisonous because ozone has a very short life span when it's in ground-level air.

 

[turbo]

Ozone is not a pollutant. In fact, ozone is probably the only reason you do not get skin cancer after spending a few hours in the sun every day during summer. Ozone blocks all UV-C rays and most UV-B rays.

Ozone is also a popular way of sanitizing things and removing smells. Putting ozone in water kills most bacteria because it's similar to using hydrogen peroxide, and that same radical reaction mechanism can be used to destroy organic molecules that cause odor. You know that "ozone smell" the http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview/sku__SI724GRY creates? That really is ozone, and it's generally not poisonous because ozone has a very short life span when it's in ground-level air.

Ozone in high levels of the atmosphere can help protect us from UV. Ozone at lower elevations can cause health alerts for people with respiratory conditions, such as asthma. There is a BIG difference. My wife and I both have respiratory conditions that require caution, treatment, and medication, and our location downstream from big midwest power plants is contributing factor.

Our state health services have issued very strong advisories against children and women eating fresh-waster fish due to mercury contamination, and they have issued a population-wide advisory against eating organ meats of moose and deer due to cadmium contamination. None of this has a tie-in with GW, but it is heavily dependent upon our government's suck-up attitude to the energy industry in which companies that pollute a lot in "XYZ" are allowed to buy or trade "pollution credits" with companies that pollute in "ABC", meaning that NONE of us living downwind or downstream of these creeps can ever hope for relief.

BTW: Laser printers have traps to disassociate the ozone that they produce in order to reduce the concentration of ozone in the workplace. Do you think that the manufacturers engineered this in for free because it was easy to do, or perhaps is ozone recognized as a hazard to respiratory health? The fact that Ion Breeze or some other manufacturer is producing ozone generators is not proof or even slightly convincing evidence that elevated levels of ozone in our homes and offices is healthy. We humans are built to breathe clean air and we perform best when we eat a mix of nutritious foods, and get regular exercise. Forcing us to exist in unnatural concentrations of contaminants is a key to our deaths.

If you want to propose that ozone is not a pollutant, I suggest that you cite some scientific evidence that it is not. Certainly the department of health in Maine is in stark disagreement with you.

 

[Mallignamius]

What you're saying makes sense, but the argument is that global warming is caused by something that isn't even a pollutant - carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous, it does not cause acid rain, it is required for plants to survive, and you are releasing CO2 as you read this.

Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true, it's getting too much attention. Earth's temperature increasing less than 1 degree C over 100 years, reaching temperatures that the Earth has historically reached (Medieval Warm Period), is not a big deal, yet global warming is all we hear about. Contrast that with something that is a big deal, such as arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and India. This truly is an environmental problem, and you've probably never heard of it.
You can probably guess which one I think is a bigger priority.

I can agree that it's not a pollutant by definition, but as a damaging excess I think it can be included in the list of necessary changes to how we go about our lives. That it is not a pollutant is then also irrelevant. The excessive discharge/creation is. So the amount of CO2 released should be capped. (This is assuming, out of my own ignorance, that CO2 presence is unnecessarily excessive.)

I don't understand how making a contrast with another problem is useful here. Admittedly, there are probably many thousands of problems I am unaware of. Pollution and excessive discharges, especially those being suspect causes of problems, are no less a concern. I suppose the contrast might help prioritize our efforts, but I doubt pollution/excess discarges should be low on our list of concerns.

 

[turbo]

I can agree that it's not a pollutant by definition, but as a damaging excess I think it can be included in the list of necessary changes to how we go about our lives. That it is not a pollutant is then also irrelevant. The excessive discharge/creation is. So the amount of CO2 released should be capped. (This is assuming, out of my own ignorance, that CO2 presence is unnecessarily excessive.)

I don't understand how making a contrast with another problem is useful here. Admittedly, there are probably many thousands of problems I am unaware of. Pollution and excessive discharges, especially those being suspect causes of problems, are no less a concern. I suppose the contrast might help prioritize our efforts, but I doubt pollution/excess discarges should be low on our list of concerns.

There are some otherwise intelligent-sounding but stupid people who say "CO2 is not a pollutant because it is essential for plant growth". What they will not admit is that they would not want to live in an enclosed environment with elevated CO2 levels in the air, nor would they want to be force-fed sub-lethal doses of water nor table salt every day. These people are liars. They want their families and themselves to live in nice, normal environments, but they don't mind ignoring the plights of people who cannot afford to relocate to get away from the polluters. Gutless, heartless creeps.

 

[ShawnD]

If you want to propose that ozone is not a pollutant, I suggest that you cite some scientific evidence that it is not. Certainly the department of health in Maine is in stark disagreement with you.

http://www.hospitalnews.com/modules/magazines/mag.asp?ID=3&IID=38&AID=416

Take your pick of any ones of the listed uses on Wiki

-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation



It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same

edit:
This is actually a lot like that debate about chlorine in water. Chlorine is not good for you, but chlorinated water is one of the greatest public health accomplishments we've ever had.

 

[Mallignamius]

http://www.hospitalnews.com/modules/magazines/mag.asp?ID=3&IID=38&AID=416

Take your pick of any ones of the listed uses on Wiki

-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation



It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same

It has beneficial uses, sure. But too much is not beneficial, is it?

 

[turbo]

It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same

OK, now you tell me if you and your family want to breathe elevated levels of ozone every day. Maybe you and your loved ones would prefer to breathe high concentrations of chlorine gas, which is used for many of the same purposes. You can get real any time. Your arguments are transparent and specious.

 

[Astronuc]

-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation.

Yes - in closed systems. Ozone will damage or destroy lung tissue, and it is an irritant to eyes, nasal and throat tissue. I believe that ozone is decomposed before it is released to the air that people breath.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's slightly ironic that whilst berating me for not supplying references for the figures I supplied you then proceed to do the same yourself
...
BTW The latest IPCC report refers to a temperature rise of .03 C between 2001 and 2007. Where did you get your figure of .3 C for the past decade?

The irony was intended, but I guess you didn't get the point I was trying to make. I didn't get the 0.3C number from anywhere. I pulled it out of my hat. It was a part of the argument that I could simply throw a number back at you and claim I've debunked the assertion.

 

[Art]

The irony was intended, but I guess you didn't get the point I was trying to make. I didn't get the 0.3C number from anywhere. I pulled it out of my hat. It was a part of the argument that I could simply throw a number back at you and claim I've debunked the assertion.

Ah, but the point you missed is I didn't just pluck numbers out of the air.

And for those who have gone off topic and are ranting on about pollution in general that is the whole point; whilst attention and resources are focused on the red-herring of CO2 production it isn't focusing on the things that really matter.

Spending billions on sequestering CO2 as is being proposed isn't going to reduce the true pollutants one iota. Personally I'd prefer to see this money spent where it would actually do some good.

Another danger of fear driven policy making is that suddenly the possibility of a massive proliferation of nuclear power plants is becoming close to becoming a reality with it's huge risk to the environment both through accidents and through the serious pollutants produced as an inherent part of the process.

 

[ShawnD]

OK, now you tell me if you and your family want to breathe elevated levels of ozone every day. Maybe you and your loved ones would prefer to breathe high concentrations of chlorine gas, which is used for many of the same purposes. You can get real any time. Your arguments are transparent and specious.

First you said coal power plants create ozone. Ozone is created by UV and high voltage sources (such as power lines connect to hydro-electric powerplants), and ozone is destroyed by almost any organic molecules in air (this is why you can't smell ozone from across the room, you need to put your nose right upagainst the air purifier or television screen).

Then you said ozone is a major health issue, even though it's used to clean the air in hospitals because ozone quickly removes itself by reacting with everything.

Then you said CO2 is a pollutant beacuse it may have negative health effects when you live in an enclosed area. What exactly does that mean? Where I live, Earth, people live in open systems that are exposed to the atmopshere. Unless your house is completely air tight, your air is roughly the same 0.05% carbon dioxide as my air. It's true that in offices the concentrations tend to be about double that, but complaints about stuffiness and poor air have more to do with a lack of oxygen than an abundance of CO2.

 

[StuMyers]

Actualy I didn't ask, StuMyers offered and I accepted whereupon he withdrew his offer.

Art, I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion, but I'm not really sure you're paying attention. For you to even mention Cambrian levels of carbon dioxide as one of your talking points tells me something about just how far even I would have to backtrack. Do you still think it's a reasonable talking point?

Anthropogenic GW is still in 'debate' in the same way evolution is still in debate. In other words, it's not. You can always scare up some contrarian arguments that seem reasonable to laymen, just as young-earth creats do, but the scientific debate as to whether or not, is over. The meaningful debate is now how much.

 

[Art]

Art, I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion, but I'm not really sure you're paying attention. For you to even mention Cambrian levels of carbon dioxide as one of your talking points tells me something about just how far even I would have to backtrack. Do you still think it's a reasonable talking point?

Anthropogenic GW is still in 'debate' in the same way evolution is still in debate. In other words, it's not. You can always scare up some contrarian arguments that seem reasonable to laymen, just as young-earth creats do, but the scientific debate as to whether or not, is over. The meaningful debate is now how much.

This is beginning to sound more and more like a litany than an honest attempt at debate

Still let me ask you something. When Al Gore showed off his 'killer' graph supposedly showing the correlation between Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 over millions of years how many of you and your GW afficionados shouted it was irrelevant because of the time scales involved? You can't have it both ways! Either the historical record is relevant or it is not, so which is it?

Oh and how many of you rushed to point out that his graph actually debunked the anthropogenic effect as the data when presented accurately (which he didn't) clearly shows CO2 increases follow GW and NOT the other way round.

 

[StuMyers]

I'm not paying attention to media interpretations of the data. I'm only listening to the climate scientists.

I'm aware the CO2 levels follow the initial temperature increases. Everyone does. Climate scientists don't think warming trends have been initially forced by CO2 within the present epoch. Last I read, the initial forcings were caused by milankovich cycles.

 

[Art]

I'm not paying attention to media interpretations of the data. I'm only listening to the climate scientists.

I'm aware the CO2 levels follow the initial temperature increases. Everyone does. Climate scientists don't think warming trends have been initially forced by CO2 within the present epoch. Last I read, the initial forcings were caused by milankovich cycles.

See now we are getting somewhere add in solar variation and suddenly CO2 begins to look like a very small player in the GW drama. Although climate scientists have belatedly started adding to some degree solar variation to their models, which incredibly they haven't in the past, they still do not model clouds in any detail as they are too 'complicated' even though water vapor by their own models is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Don't you think that's a little like performing an autopsy on a corpse and ignoring the bullet holes because they are complicated, whilst trying to determine the cause of death

 

[edward]

Yes - in closed systems. Ozone will damage or destroy lung tissue, and it is an irritant to eyes, nasal and throat tissue. I believe that ozone is decomposed before it is released to the air that people breath.

I remember driving the Los Angeles freeways in the 60's. At times my eyes burned until I could hardly see. It was common to see birds literally fall out of the sky when they flew over the freeways.

Ozone is fine in the right place, but not in your lungs.

 

[edward]

See now we are getting somewhere add in solar variation and suddenly CO2 begins to look like a very small player in the GW drama. Although climate scientists have belatedly started adding to some degree solar variation to their models, which incredibly they haven't in the past, they still do not model clouds in any detail as they are too 'complicated' even though water vapor by their own models is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Don't you think that's a little like performing an autopsy on a corpse and ignoring the bullet holes because they are complicated, whilst trying to determine the cause of death

I would think that if the core of the scientific community had thought water vapor and clouds were the key element, that is where they would have started.

Clouds and water vapor have always been in the atmosphere. What man has added has not. Those who blame it all on water vapor must also realize that the warmer the air gets the more water it will hold. if the resulting big billowing clouds will block enough sun, that would be great, but if not it will be too late to do anything significant.

Ice loss and ocean temperatures are a more practical predictor of global warming Those studies have already been done by NASA and the National Oceanographic Institute. What the temperature was in Buffalo last year compared to X number of years ago is not going to give an accurate prediction of the future until it gets so blasted warm it is obvious.

Statistics on ice loss and ocean temperatures do tend to support GW.

Burning fossil fuels spew out a lot more than just CO2.
The good part about limiting fossil fuel use to reduce green house gases, whether they are the cause of GW or not, is that it will lead us into a new era of clean energy. Gasoline was cleaner than horse manure, but it is time to move on.

 

[edward]

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle

According to Carl Wunsch, MIT oceanographer, much of the material which he contributed to the "Swindle" documentary was highly edited.

In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece

 

[StuMyers]

See now we are getting somewhere add in solar variation and suddenly CO2 begins to look like a very small player in the GW drama. Although climate scientists have belatedly started adding to some degree solar variation to their models, which incredibly they haven't in the past, they still do not model clouds in any detail as they are too 'complicated' even though water vapor by their own models is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Don't you think that's a little like performing an autopsy on a corpse and ignoring the bullet holes because they are complicated, whilst trying to determine the cause of death

Solar variation? Are you referring to the 11-year cycle? The one which wasn't even directly (not via counting sunspots) detectable until recently? The one where we are currently near a minima? I suppose everyone except Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?

You shouldn't be suprised by your befuddlement with data. You're not an expert, and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not either. The fact is, unless you go and earn a PhD in a quantitative science, gain employment as a climate scientist, and publish original research in a PR journal, you're not qualified to have your own opinion on it.

 

[Pythagorean]

First you said coal power plants create ozone. Ozone is created by UV and high voltage sources (such as power lines connect to hydro-electric powerplants), and ozone is destroyed by almost any organic molecules in air (this is why you can't smell ozone from across the room, you need to put your nose right upagainst the air purifier or television screen).

Then you said ozone is a major health issue, even though it's used to clean the air in hospitals because ozone quickly removes itself by reacting with everything.

Then you said CO2 is a pollutant beacuse it may have negative health effects when you live in an enclosed area. What exactly does that mean? Where I live, Earth, people live in open systems that are exposed to the atmopshere. Unless your house is completely air tight, your air is roughly the same 0.05% carbon dioxide as my air. It's true that in offices the concentrations tend to be about double that, but complaints about stuffiness and poor air have more to do with a lack of oxygen than an abundance of CO2.

I don't know anything about ozone, but I know coal power plant ash is radioactive (I just got a tour of my local power plant, in fact). Also, where I live, there is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_inversion" in the winter because it gets so cold here that we basically sit in a bowl of very low energy atmosphere (no wind near ground level). This causes a closed-system layer between the ground and the the top of the inversion.

My point here is that it depends on your location. You especially can't expect to understand how atmosphere work at the poles if you're at the equator or vice versa.

That's just one example of how complicated a model of the atmosphere might be, though. If you try to make assumptions on a global scale, you're going to have to consider millions of things like that, all dynamically interacting with each other.

Then you have to have the thousands of different scientists working on it put the data together in a reasonable way (this sounds kind of tricky to me, considering every different group will have their own methods for both data collection and analysis and they live in different nations, seeking different degrees of truth, speaking different languages.)

I'm not surprised there's no obvious consensus (though, for all I know, there may be 100% consensus among rational scientists.)

 

[light_bulb]

do you smell ozone right after a lightining storm? it's what gives that fresh air smell.

 

[Art]

Solar variation? Are you referring to the 11-year cycle? The one which wasn't even directly (not via counting sunspots) detectable until recently? The one where we are currently near a minima? I suppose everyone except Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?

Err you have heard of the Maunder Minimum, right? And the Dalton Mininum and the current period of high solar activity (highest in 8000 years) known as the Modern Maximum which began in 1950 and is expected to run until 2030.

You are also aware the Earth's magnetic field has decreased in strength by 10% over the past 100 years reducing it's ability to trap cosmic particles which are known to play a key role in cloud formation, right??

You are also no doubt aware of the graph produced by Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1994 showing a direct relationship between solar activity and Earth temperatures over the previous 140 years and the Harold Jeffreys Lectures on the links between our climate and the behaviour of the Sun, from the perspective of a solar physicist.

And of course you must be familiar with the study done on temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on d18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau, China which concluded solar activity is the primary driving force of climate change http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060105/20060105_15.html

Or do you simply not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and so keep simply repeating the same mantra??

You shouldn't be suprised by your befuddlement with data. You're not an expert, and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not either. The fact is, unless you go and earn a PhD in a quantitative science, gain employment as a climate scientist, and publish original research in a PR journal, you're not qualified to have your own opinion on it.

Please try not to assume that everybody shares your ignorance of a topic you choose to comment on. Just because you do not know something doesn't mean it's unknowable.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ah, but the point you missed is I didn't just pluck numbers out of the air.

I didn't expect that you did, but until you source your data, it makes no difference.

Actualy I didn't ask, StuMyers offered and I accepted whereupon he withdrew his offer.

Was this by PM? I don't see any such offer.

 

[Art]

I didn't expect that you did, but until you source your data, it makes no difference.

Was this by PM? I don't see any such offer.

Then again you also seem to have missed the sources I provided upon request. In fact I seem to be the only one being asked for and/or actually providing sources. As for the offer - If one ignores the little jibe at the end you can see he did indeed make the offer

I can try and go through them one by one. I'm not by any means an expert, but based on what you write, I don't think you really need one.

 

[StuMyers]

Err you have heard of the Maunder Minimum, right? And the Dalton Mininum and the current period of high solar activity (highest in 8000 years) known as the Modern Maximum which began in 1950 and is expected to run until 2030.

Yes, I do actually. I also know that IPCC TAR's analysis puts solar forcing at a full order of magnitude lower than that from CO2. Look it up.

I don't know anything about changing magnetic fields affecting cloud formation. I'm not qualified to judge the data. The difference between us, is that I know that. If the majority of CS's tell me it's important, I'll go along with it. If the consesnus says no, I'll go along with that too.

You can also go out and find contrarian arguments making the case against evolution or for a 6000-yr old Earth (usually all from the same folks). Doesn't mean these issues are in any kind of meaningful doubt.

Or do you simply not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and so keep simply repeating the same mantra??


Please try not to assume that everybody shares your ignorance of a topic you choose to comment on. Just because you do not know something doesn't mean it's unknowable.

On the contrary, I know exactly enough to know how much I don't. Maybe to you, finding one dubious report or analysis that claims 'B' is enough to go against the overwhelming consensus of 'A'. In my experience, that's usually because you don't really understand either, and are choosing the one which you 'like'. Both are black boxes, so to speak, so they appear to weigh equally.

I'm not giving an opinion. I don't know enough to do so. I can only look up and state the consesnus view.

 

[StuMyers]

This case seems akin to having Lee Harvey Oswald, in the book depository, with the smoking rifle, and insisting he's innocent because someone heard an echo in the grassy knoll.

 

[Andre]

consensus? I don't believe that's part of the scientific method. Perhaps in the post modern science

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469

But that's not that modern, the same applied for tracking down witches in the dark ages.

However, I believe there is some faint consensus about the principles of the scientific philosophy of Karl Popper, Science is about the impossibility to prove theories, but theories are falsifiable..

The theory in question is that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a global temperature increase in the range of some 2-4 degrees Celsius. There is also some pretty common idea that under primary conditions, without feedback, the temperature increase would be in the order of magnitude of one degree, too insignificant to worry about. Hence we need "positive" feedback to attain those "dangerous" temperature increases.

I intend to open a thread later today in the Earth science realm (you should visit that more often) with the intention to demonstrate that system response characteristics should falsify this positive feedback.

If we agree that the data are right and are correctly depicting the situation, then this should also falsify the aforementioned theory.

 

[Art]

This case seems akin to having Lee Harvey Oswald, in the book depository, with the smoking rifle, and insisting he's innocent because someone heard an echo in the grassy knoll.

Yes I think that sums up your position very nicely, well done!

Now unless you are prepared to address the points I have made with something other than hand waving and adopting a position akin to Tomlinson's ghost I see no point in my wasting any more time responding to your posts.

"O I have a friend on Earth," he said, "that was my priest and guide,
"And well would he answer all for me if he were at my side."

http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/l_tomlin.htm

 

[Andre]

This case seems akin to having Lee Harvey Oswald, in the book depository, with the smoking rifle, and insisting he's innocent because someone heard an echo in the grassy knoll.

I believe the fallacy is called "guilt by association". Remarkble is the role of fallacies in propagating the global warming myth.

 

[Gokul43201]

Then again you also seem to have missed the sources I provided upon request. In fact I seem to be the only one being asked for and/or actually providing sources.

Yes, you provided some sources afterwards, and I haven't looked at them yet, but as long as the data is sourced, I'm happy. I didn't miss that. But naturally, if you write up a list of vague and imprecisely worded statements and ask someone else to explain them, you darn well provide sources for these statements.

As for the offer - If one ignores the little jibe at the end you can see he did indeed make the offer

The post you quoted was written after you posted your shopping list and asked Stu to throw light on it (ie: he didn't make any offer before you asked him to explain your claims).

In any case, as long as the points are properly sourced, I've got no complaints.

 

[Moridin]

After watching this documentary, I thought that the third world arc was interesting and provided some valid points.

 

[Andre]

I intend to open a thread later today in the Earth science realm (you should visit that more often) with the intention to demonstrate that system response characteristics should falsify this positive feedback.

It's here

 

[StuMyers]

I believe the fallacy is called "guilt by association". Remarkble is the role of fallacies in propagating the global warming myth.

I'm not a climate scientist making a scientific case. I'm just some guy on the internet making a joke.

And you? Are you in any way qualified, academically or professionally, to analyze data and draw a meaningful conclusion? And before you start dusting off your filosofy terms about argument from authority, be advised that I'm not a self-declared expert, and thus am not qualified to draw my own conclusions. This is why I seek the advise of an expert. Experts and laymen do not argue on equal terms.

Now unless you are prepared to address the points I have made with something other than hand waving and adopting a position akin to Tomlinson's ghost I see no point in my wasting any more time responding to your posts.

Off the top of my head, even I could see that your talking points were disjointed and out of context. The fact that you would mention Cambrian climate or thickening ice sheets, two very silly arguments, easily refuted by about 10 seconds of thought or google research, suggests to me that you are simply out to collect unrigorous talking points that you think support your case.

Are you also aware of Martian global warming? I'm suprised you didn't mention that one, since it seems to be the contrarian argument du-jour.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

 

[Pythagorean]

consensus? I don't believe that's part of the scientific method. Perhaps in the post modern science

It's true that consensus was not always part of the scientific method (especially since it was only rich people with spare time that did science back in the day) but nowadays, there's clear enough consensus in many subjects:

The sun is a fusion reaction (there's a small amount of people who are still trying to claim it's an electric energy source, but they're obviously crackpots)

The Earth is round (ever heard of the hollow Earth society? how about the flat Earth society? These people are not the majority, but they're loud enough to be heard and followed by uneducated people)

The universe is random (Schroedinger's cat; naturally, religions involving fate don't like the implications of this.)

The Big bang (most people arguing against this have a less-believable alternative called intelligent design)Notice that these are all things that were discovered, theorized, and experimented more than fifty years ago. Global warming is a baby. Everyone that's jumping on their respective bandwagon's right now (that are not professionals) become highly suspect.

Also, the people that are taught to make good arguments aren't necessarily the people who know what they're talking about. Winning an argument and being right are two entirely different things.

I have never, in my scientific training, been taught persuasive techniques. I come here to discuss and chew on the topic, not to try and convince other people that they're wrong and throw insults at them (accusing them of dogmatic practices for instance).

I'm here to listen and convince people to really question whether they know what they're talking about.

 

[StuMyers]

It's also probably useful to note that it's different to say "99% of all people think X" than it is to say "99% of all experts in the field think X", when you're not in the peer group.

In science, non-experts can simply not argue on equal footing with experts. I've spent the better part of a decade becoming an expert in a specialized field, and I know for sure that you cannot argue in MY specialty on equal terms, just by reading pop sci or political talking points.

 

[Evo]

It's also probably useful to note that it's different to say "99% of all people think X" than it is to say "99% of all experts in the field think X", when you're not in the peer group.

In science, non-experts can simply not argue on equal footing with experts. I've spent the better part of a decade becoming an expert in a specialized field, and I know for sure that you cannot argue in MY specialty on equal terms, just by reading pop sci or political talking points.

I find it funny that you say that someone that is not an expert is not qualified to form an opinion, then proceed with your opinion. You are selecting what "you" want to believe and exclaiming your version of the truth is the "only, correct and true" version. Truth is, no one knows for sure what effect man made pollution is having, they can only guess.

Did you read the UN report on cows being a major factor in global warming? Is it ok to accept some reports coming from the UN and ignore others depending on what you want to believe?

Livestock a major threat to environment

Remedies urgently needed

"Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport."

"When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing."

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

I don't see AL Gore screaming for a massive slaughter of cows to stop this DISASTROUS bovine cause of global warming. The cows are killing us!

Why is Al not screaming about this? Perhaps cow farts and poop are not as glamorous as coal.

 

[Astronuc]

Livestock a major threat to environment

Remedies urgently needed

Barbeque!

I'll bring the beer and picante (habanero) BBQ sauce!

 

[StuMyers]

I find it funny that you say that someone that is not an expert is not qualified to form an opinion, then proceed with your opinion. You are selecting what "you" want to believe and exclaiming your version of the truth is the "only, correct and true" version. Truth is, no one knows for sure what effect man made pollution is having, they can only guess.

What opinion? I'm not stating my opinion on AGW. I'm stating the consensus view.

I want to think that AGW isn't correct. What I want however, is irrelevant.

And... not all guesses are created equal.

 

[out of whack]

Barbeque!

Do you have a wind-powered BBQ? You'd better not be burning coal!

 

[Evo]

What opinion? I'm not stating my opinion on AGW. I'm stating the consensus view.

What does the "consensus" view have to do with anything? The fact that a lot of scientists have caught onto the fact that they can get more grant money and secure their jobs by "jumping on the bandwagon" does not mean they even actually believe in it. It takes a LOT more guts for a scientist to speak against the popular consensus.

I'm all for doing something about pollution, but I am not for "chicken little" scare tactics that are heading off down the wrong path in the name of popularity. People need to look at what is REALLY happening.

Emmisions from cattle are well documented, but ignored by politicians. Why?

 

[Evo]

Do you have a wind-powered BBQ? You'd better not be burning coal!

I'm doing my part by eating it rare.

Barbeque!

I'll bring the beer and picante (habanero) BBQ sauce!

I know turbo will be more than happy to help. I KNOW that Ivan and Integral routinely do their part in reducing the cow population.

Seriously, a level headed look into what is causing the most pollution and how it can be curtailed is what we should be doing. THAT is why I am against all this political hype.

 

[StuMyers]

What does the "consensus" view have to do with anything? The fact that a lot of scientists have caught onto the fact that they can get more grant money and secure their jobs by "jumping on the bandwagon" does not mean they even actually believe in it. It takes a LOT more guts for a scientist to speak against the popular consensus.

Have you been reading Michael Crichton? He writes science fiction.

 

[Evo]

I abhor fanaticism and tend to prefer to remain middle of the road, now PETA has gotten involved. I'm all for animal rights but again, moderation, moderation, moderation. Why do people have to go off the deep end? The following post I found actually sums things up nicely, and I have to link to the source (just found it through google), I am NOT endorsing this site.

"I'm sorry to be redundant about this, but I don't think people fully appreciate the logic. Meat eating is either the number one cause of GW or it is not. If it is the number one cause, then why are the GW people not talking about it? Even the skeptics are not focusing on meat as they should be. I think meat may be the Achilles Heel of GW, as it puts the lie to them. The skeptics should be pressing it. I think the logic is being blurred for several reasons. One is that lot of people think we should conserve (we should), and end our dependence on foreign oil (we should). This does not mean that CO2 is being released in sufficient quantities to cause climate change, though. People rationalize going along with the GW scare because we need to conserve, and they forget that conservation of oil is a different issue. (I think it's right to conserve oil and reduce dependency, but I think fudging the issue is manipulative.)

Another reason is that even the believers have a natural resistence to giving up meat, and they fear it will damage their movement. They want to keep it quiet, and for some strange reason, their opponents go along with keeping it quiet, probably because they think the less said about it the better. Big mistake IMO, especially if meat is in fact the Achilles Heel of the environmentalists. The American people are used to being scolded about oil, but if they're asked to give up meat, they'll begin to wise up, and start asking basic questions. It's this "leave well enough alone" mindset which prevents people from getting to the truth.

Finally, there's a natural inclination to think of oil as the culprit, not just because Big Oil is so widely demonized, but because we've all been conditioned from childhood to think of smokestacks and tailpipes as pouring out evil, filthy pollution. Never mind that we emit carbons and that they're organic. Oil companies are "bad." Farmers are "good."

Thus, it is counterintuitive to see meat as the problem. Frankly, I don't think man's oil consumption or meat consumption emits enough carbon to change the climate. But I believe in being fair."

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/004744.html

 

[out of whack]

Seriously, a level headed look into what is causing the most pollution and how it can be curtailed is what we should be doing.

And the number one, most significant cause of pollution is... drum roll... people.

Are politicians addressing world population? Nope. Not popular. Of course.

 

[Gokul43201]

Any time (like just now) I come upon something relevant to this list, I'll share. It is my opinion though, that the person most capable of debunking many points on this list is Andre.

Perhaps from the knowledge you gleaned at these lectures you might be able to throw some light on the following?

The current average temperature rise of .13 C per decade is the same now as it was in 1910 when reliable records began.

From the 2007 IPCC report:

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

This directly contradicts the assertion that the trend has been "constant" over the last century.

The temperatures the UN uses to calculate average global temperatures are obtained from readings taken near expanding towns and cities which makes the data victim to the heat island effect which is potentially serious as it is possible that the Earth is actually cooling not warming.

The error bars due to the heat island effect are calculated and specified in the same report.

Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.

Both quotes are from here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf - pg4

 

[Art]

Any time (like just now) I come upon something relevant to this list, I'll share. It is my opinion though, that the person most capable of debunking many points on this list is Andre.

From the 2007 IPCC report:This directly contradicts the assertion that the trend has been "constant" over the last century.

That's a blatant strawman argument. I never said it was constant. I said it is the same now as in 1910.

The error bars due to the heat island effect are calculated and specified in the same report.

Both quotes are from here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf - pg4

According to the U.S. EPA the heat island effect accounts for between 1 - 6 C differences between urban and rural areas. Hence as cities grow one would expect temperatures measured within these cities and in surrounding areas to rise. The fact that largely they haven't is why some think temperatures may actually be falling. http://www.epa.gov/heatislands/

btw Seeing as how it is the veracity and conclusions of the IPCC's report I am questioning quoting them as the authoratitive source seems somewhat pointless.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's a blatant strawman argument.

No, it's a desperate attempt at gleaning some kind of meaningful argument from your pointer.

I never said it was constant. I said it is the same now as in 1910.

Now that's a non-argument, and is the reason why I attempted to interpret it in some kind of meaningful manner. If your pointer (as you now assert) has nothing to do with trends in global temperature rise, why did you include it? Beats me! If there is an argument in there, it would have helped if you made it clear. Anyone knows that the existence of two points with the same slope says nothing about the trend of the curve.

Besides, if "reliable" records began only in 1910, how did you compute a moving average for 1910? (Note: I didn't see this claim in your two sources, hence all this trouble with trying to interpret it meaningfully. The trouble could have been avoided if each pointer was individually sourced.)

btw Seeing as how it is the veracity and conclusions of the IPCC's report I am questioning quoting them as the authoratitive source seems somewhat pointless.

I'm only pointing out that your pointer distorts what the study involves. Rather that saying there are people that predict a different magnitude for the heat island effect, you made it look like the data was used incorrectly because it didn't account for the heat island effect. I provided a link to the IPCC report to show that it DID account for the heat island effect.

This was part of my objection to the original list. By writing it imprecisely, you make it impossible to have a meaningful argument about it.