theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 15:58:18 GMT -5
Ok, this pretty much ends my contribution here.
Whether or not to act, to me, seems to me to be a moot point. All but the most diehard would argue that at least some environmental legislation has positive impacts (cleaner air and the lack of polluted drinking water, for example). The how, or more precisely how much, seems a more important point of discussion. I think even Coburn would concede that humanity may have SOME impact, but it essentially doesn't matter if it's negligible relative to what the planet itself is doing.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the video, whose four consequences are diluted into an either/or that doesn't seem appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 16:02:26 GMT -5
Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the video Agreed
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 27, 2008 16:07:01 GMT -5
C2C, you are pretty much correct. My opinion is that the verdict is still out on if and how much we are contributing to/causing so called global warming. However, given that possibility and the potentially disastrous effects of such man caused warming, it makes sense to explore possible solutions to the problem. That being said, the arguments are always from an entirely different angle. The argument is always (or at least seemingly so) that this warming is a proven fact and we need to do something about it. Not surprisingly, this "something" is always in the form of regulation and tax, which is something that I am generally against to begin with. That is where it becomes a political issue, and when I say across the aisle in this regard, I am more talking about those on the opposite sides of the issue rather than simply traditionally republican vs. democratic postitions. But even though advancements in a certain direction, almost of the "better safe than sorry" nature, might be prudent and wise that doesn't mean that I am adopting the political platform of those who are attacking the problem from an entirely different angle and with an entirely different agenda.
I guess that is the best way to say it.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2008 18:02:30 GMT -5
C2C, you are pretty much correct. My opinion is that the verdict is still out on if and how much we are contributing to/causing so called global warming. However, given that possibility and the potentially disastrous effects of such man caused warming, it makes sense to explore possible solutions to the problem. That being said, the arguments are always from an entirely different angle. The argument is always (or at least seemingly so) that this warming is a proven fact and we need to do something about it. Not surprisingly, this "something" is always in the form of regulation and tax, which is something that I am generally against to begin with. That is where it becomes a political issue, and when I say across the aisle in this regard, I am more talking about those on the opposite sides of the issue rather than simply traditionally republican vs. democratic postitions. But even though advancements in a certain direction, almost of the "better safe than sorry" nature, might be prudent and wise that doesn't mean that I am adopting the political platform of those who are attacking the problem from an entirely different angle and with an entirely different agenda. I guess that is the best way to say it. I hear you. I too support the Precautionary Principle and worry that the essence of the issue gets lost in divisive political rhetoric. I think it's worth exploring what "interests" each "side" is trying to achieve though. Just FYI, there is a variety of non regulation-and-tax solutions out there if you look. Energy companies have applied to use tens of thousands of acres of land for wind and solar in the West alone. Conservation is another - simple things that individuals can do that save them money on energy costs as well that don't require anything more than awareness and small changes in behavior. I know for a fact that innovators are coming up with processes and business models to fight greenhouse gas emissions while making some serious bank, totally free of government involvement (other than the usual permitting and such). I guess where we diverge is that I see government regulation/taxation as part of a suite of solution strategies (tools, really, that have to be used for the right job), in that government can fill gaps that the market has shown that it can't or won't (just as industry can fill gaps that government can't or won't) - for example, by providing state or national standards, collecting and assessing non-biased data, managing public lands for common benefit, and taking action when industry is too slow to react (like lead in gasoline or SO2 emissions cap-and-trade). But, reasonable people can disagree about the proper scope of government involvement (hell, reasonable people have disagreed about the scope of government since before the written word). My interest in the discussion is summed up by a couple quotes from Franklin and Eisenhower (respectively): "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail." "In preparing for battle I have found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensible."
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 27, 2008 19:21:01 GMT -5
Here's a quote from the article I noted on the first page of this thread:
"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."
Question: what might this say about man being a major cause of global warming?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 28, 2008 9:57:38 GMT -5
ed - I think the essence of the quote is "single fastest temperature change ever recorded..."
Obviously, such data raise questions. Did the article cite any potential reasons for the cooling? Volcanic activity, solar fluctuations, increased particulate matter in the atmosphere, etc.?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 28, 2008 10:53:01 GMT -5
ed - I think the essence of the quote is "single fastest temperature change ever recorded..." Obviously, such data raise questions. Did the article cite any potential reasons for the cooling? Volcanic activity, solar fluctuations, increased particulate matter in the atmosphere, etc.? Here's another part of the article: "Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 28, 2008 13:55:52 GMT -5
Here's a quote from the article I noted on the first page of this thread: "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down." Question: what might this say about man being a major cause of global warming? Ugh, "weather" and "climate" aren't the same thing. A dip in temperature one year does not mean global average temperature over the last 100 years hasn't been going up, which all scientific evidence we have available at this point backs up. You might have well said that global warming is fake because it snowed somewhere yesterday. This is basic math, people. Furthermore, HiFi, science is about the cumulation of evidence; one study either way will never change the prevailing consensus. As of this time, the evidence tilts heavily in favor of global warming existing and man-made interventions causing it. There is no real scientific dispute about this. This isn't to say that the preponderance of evidence might change at some point, but you'll have to do a lot better than "I heard something on the radio". Responding to a few other things: Pascal's wager is indeed a fallacious argument, because it presents a false dichotomy. That is, the question is not simply between believing or not believing in God, it's believing or disbelieving in many gods. To truly satisfy Pascal, you'd have to believe in Yaweh, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all simultaneously, just to be sure. The video in question surely falls for this fallacy. There's better arguments to be made in favor of action in the face of global warming, namely that the evidence to date compels us to act. This video isn't one of them. As for the precautionary principle, people often forget that it only applies in situations where the evidence for both propositions is equal. Otherwise, no action would ever be taken. This is not the case with global warming, as I've already said.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,306
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 28, 2008 14:45:43 GMT -5
Ugh, "weather" and "climate" aren't the same thing. A dip in temperature one year does not mean global average temperature over the last 100 years hasn't been going up, which all scientific evidence we have available at this point backs up. You might have well said that global warming is fake because it snowed somewhere yesterday. This is basic math, people. Actually as per m-w.com, climate is the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation . So while this is a record of only a single year, it does throw into question the hypothesis that earth's average weather conditions are gradually increasing. It is quite possible that this is not a trend but merely a blip, on the other hand, this is not just a single snow storm in China, this is a global weather trend that has been well documented. From what I have read here, no one is denying that humans have caused changes in weather conditions or that taking positive steps towards the environment would not be benificial. But when people become so convinced in their ideology that they instinctively dismiss any potentially contrary evidence, they are doing no one a service. Dismissing this interesting bit of data by saying that "all evidence" backs up your point of view is a clear logical fallacy in itself. I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed, that this issue has been hijacked by political and emotional interests. One can not look at any evidence for or against global warming without questioning whether the writer/researcher is a Democrat or Republican, lobbyist for Greenpeace or Big Oil. From what I have observed, there is currently a scientific consensus that humans have affected the global climate, however there is significant dispute over what degree we have. This evidence, if over time proven to be more then just a temporary outlier, could well show that human impact is much less a factor than what many on the far environmental-left have suggested. That does not mean that pollution somehow becomes good, though. Local conditions, such as water supplies, air quality, erosion, loss of wildlife/flora are also reasons for reducing our impact. But a less emotional, more reasoned response would serve these issues much better than people on either side of the issue yelling at eachother and predicting doomsday scenarios (whether environmental or economic).
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 28, 2008 14:57:05 GMT -5
Here's a quote from the article I noted on the first page of this thread: "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down." Question: what might this say about man being a major cause of global warming? Ugh, "weather" and "climate" aren't the same thing. A dip in temperature one year does not mean global average temperature over the last 100 years hasn't been going up, which all scientific evidence we have available at this point backs up. You might have well said that global warming is fake because it snowed somewhere yesterday. This is basic math, people. Furthermore, HiFi, science is about the cumulation of evidence; one study either way will never change the prevailing consensus. As of this time, the evidence tilts heavily in favor of global warming existing and man-made interventions causing it. There is no real scientific dispute about this. This isn't to say that the preponderance of evidence might change at some point, but you'll have to do a lot better than "I heard something on the radio". Responding to a few other things: Pascal's wager is indeed a fallacious argument, because it presents a false dichotomy. That is, the question is not simply between believing or not believing in God, it's believing or disbelieving in many gods. To truly satisfy Pascal, you'd have to believe in Yaweh, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all simultaneously, just to be sure. The video in question surely falls for this fallacy. There's better arguments to be made in favor of action in the face of global warming, namely that the evidence to date compels us to act. This video isn't one of them. As for the precautionary principle, people often forget that it only applies in situations where the evidence for both propositions is equal. Otherwise, no action would ever be taken. This is not the case with global warming, as I've already said. I agree fully with your analysis with regard to one year's happenings. That obviously doesn't indicate a trend. However, your preclusion that global warming is a proven event is exactly the type of bias that I am talking about in general. Your suggestion that it is an overwhelming consensus that man-made global warming is a guaranteed reality is false. There are a number of theories as to what, if anything is happening, let alone what factors and in what relationships each factor are weighted in the outcome. I don't want to beat the dead horse here, but I think there is a very clear distinction between your presuppositions and mine.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 28, 2008 14:58:15 GMT -5
Ugh, "weather" and "climate" aren't the same thing. A dip in temperature one year does not mean global average temperature over the last 100 years hasn't been going up, which all scientific evidence we have available at this point backs up. You might have well said that global warming is fake because it snowed somewhere yesterday. This is basic math, people. Actually as per m-w.com, climate is the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation . So while this is a record of only a single year, it does throw into question the hypothesis that earth's average weather conditions are gradually increasing. It is quite possible that this is not a trend but merely a blip, on the other hand, this is not just a single snow storm in China, this is a global weather trend that has been well documented. From what I have read here, no one is denying that humans have caused changes in weather conditions or that taking positive steps towards the environment would not be benificial. But when people become so convinced in their ideology that they instinctively dismiss any potentially contrary evidence, they are doing no one a service. Dismissing this interesting bit of data by saying that "all evidence" backs up your point of view is a clear logical fallacy in itself. I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed, that this issue has been hijacked by political and emotional interests. One can not look at any evidence for or against global warming without questioning whether the writer/researcher is a Democrat or Republican, lobbyist for Greenpeace or Big Oil. From what I have observed, there is currently a scientific consensus that humans have affected the global climate, however there is significant dispute over what degree we have. This evidence, if over time proven to be more then just a temporary outlier, could well show that human impact is much less a factor than what many on the far environmental-left have suggested. That does not mean that pollution somehow becomes good, though. Local conditions, such as water supplies, air quality, erosion, loss of wildlife/flora are also reasons for reducing our impact. But a less emotional, more reasoned response would serve these issues much better than people on either side of the issue yelling at each other and predicting doomsday scenarios (whether environmental or economic). SDHoya, I could quibble, but I won't. You should notice, however, that it was HiFi who started this whole thread, specifically to flame "Look, global warming isn't real! Hurr!" He's a science denier, talk to him if you want a "reasoned" response. Speaking of a less emotional, more reasoned response, I guess I'm on the "far environmental left" now? I'm an EcoCommieNazi, and I'm coming to eat your children. Rawr!
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 28, 2008 15:34:10 GMT -5
Let's not go overboard bandaid. I am not a science denier. I merely pointed out a recent study, which is one that seemingly questions a supposedly accepted view among certain circles. If you want to take it further, it is reasonable to ask why some groups are so convinced one way while others are not. In this case it does stand to reason that there are likely preconceived agendas for either view.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,306
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 28, 2008 15:40:38 GMT -5
Bando, I don't know hifi from a hole in the ground, so I can't say whether he is a science denier or a sceptic or Joe Gibbs. Whatever his opinions in the original posting, the information that he cited, and was later linked by excorcist (I think) is interesting and I think should give pause for thought.
And by the way, I was not calling you a far left environmentalist. Honestly, other than that you believe global warming to be undeniably true, I have no idea to what extent you think it will be. I was specifically referring to the people who believe in doomsday scenarios.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 28, 2008 16:26:56 GMT -5
SD, my secret is out. I guess it is time that you all learn my true identity. I am Joe Gibbs, former coach of the Washington Redskins.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 29, 2008 9:32:04 GMT -5
1) This is coming not from a Peer reviewed journal article, this is from a blog where "The views and comments are those of the author only" hardly damning evidence in the face of global warming. The author got data from a source and put his spin on it.
2) We had a year of cooling that reduced some of the increase in temperature that we've seen over the past century. In other words global temperatures went down for one year, but they're still higher than they used to be.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 29, 2008 9:46:40 GMT -5
(snip) 2) We had a year of cooling that reduced some of the increase in temperature that we've seen over the past century. In other words global temperatures went down for one year, but they're still higher than they used to be. I talked about this in some earlier posts. No one disputes that global temperatures are getting warmer. There's an open question, however, as to what part of this is being caused by man. And this answer is the crux. If humanity is contributing 0%, then global warming is basically a product of the planet's age and that's it. If humanity is solely responsible for global warming, then it's solely the product of humanity. I doubt that anyone truly believes that either of the above is correct and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Nailing down that answer is important. If global temperatures went down, then that would seem to suggest that humanity has a smaller impact on global warming than originally expected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2008 10:02:49 GMT -5
If global temperatures went down, then that would seem to suggest that humanity has a smaller impact on global warming than originally expected. Wow - that's quite a leap in logic. Maybe it's exactly the opposite. Maybe humanity has a HUGE impact, and global temperatures went down because people worldwide have changed their behavior and now make regular conscious decisions that have a positive impact on the planet. If you can leap, so can the other side.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 29, 2008 10:10:25 GMT -5
1) This is coming not from a Peer reviewed journal article, this is from a blog where "The views and comments are those of the author only" hardly damning evidence in the face of global warming. The author got data from a source and put his spin on it. This is not entirely fair. Yes, it's from a blog, yes, the author has his opinion. But the author is also diligent in linking his sources -- and it is multiple, accredited sources, not just one source. If you follow those bread crumbs, the data he is collecting does at least appear to support his suppositions (and they are suppositions, not conclusions; another important point). I am staying out of this conversation otherwise, but I just wanted to raise that point because there is a lot of "attack the messenger" in sensitive topics like this one, and it's not always justified.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 29, 2008 10:13:51 GMT -5
If global temperatures went down, then that would seem to suggest that humanity has a smaller impact on global warming than originally expected. Wow - that's quite a leap in logic. Maybe it's exactly the opposite. Maybe humanity has a HUGE impact, and global temperatures went down because people worldwide have changed their behavior and now make regular conscious decisions that have a positive impact on the planet. If you can leap, so can the other side. Really, I'm not being glib and I don't think it's a leap. Let's assume that temperatures decreased last year (this may be a big one and I'm not sure I buy it myself). Let's also assume that humanity's output has a negative effect on global warming (this to me seems pretty obvious). For global temperatures to decrease, the earth's inner workings would have had to overcome humanity's negative effect. If global warming advocates claim that humanity is consistently warming the planet, then a drop in temperature is a BIG deal that seems to throw a wrench into their logic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2008 10:30:38 GMT -5
Wow - that's quite a leap in logic. Maybe it's exactly the opposite. Maybe humanity has a HUGE impact, and global temperatures went down because people worldwide have changed their behavior and now make regular conscious decisions that have a positive impact on the planet. If you can leap, so can the other side. Really, I'm not being glib and I don't think it's a leap. Let's assume that temperatures decreased last year (this may be a big one and I'm not sure I buy it myself). Let's also assume that humanity's output has a negative effect on global warming (this to me seems pretty obvious). For global temperatures to decrease, the earth's inner workings would have had to overcome humanity's negative effect. If global warming advocates claim that humanity is consistently warming the planet, then a drop in temperature is a BIG deal that seems to throw a wrench into their logic. As you pointed out above, the answer clearly is somewhere in the middle. But it seems to me that any "logic" can make sense depending on your bias. And - to bring the thread full circle - that's why the issue is politicized. I just think it's amazing that people seem to hang on for dear life to the occasional blips in their favor when most of the evidence (that is, science) consistently points in the other direction. Regardless, there's some middle ground here that I don't think we'll ever settle on. And when it's impossible to find a middle ground, both sides retreat to their corners and dig in rather than conceding any ground. And nothing gets done. And that's sad.
|
|