EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 16, 2007 8:33:10 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on May 16, 2007 9:18:14 GMT -5
I wonder how many of these "scientologists" are the same group that argue against evolution and a heliocentric system.
"The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. " At least the piece is unintentionally funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2007 9:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on May 16, 2007 10:42:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 16, 2007 23:32:38 GMT -5
oh easyed ... you have no frame of reference. you're out of your element. but man, that gave me a good laugh!
since we're going with anecdotal evidence rather than scientific fact: FWIW, folks in alaksa (not a liberal bunch by anyone's estimation...especially the lady who had a picture of a bear she shot signed by Ted Nugent) that i met with in the last couple weeks ago sure seemed to think that climate change was happening. you know, the whole moving native villages that have been there for hundreds of years, glaciers retreating miles back from their terminal morraines, trees literally falling over because the permafrost is melting (these are called drunken trees), that kind of thing. saw it with my own eyes.
apart from laying blame or saying "i told you so" the fact is that things are happening that are now getting beyond our ability to control. after hundreds of years of near-dominance over nature, nature is reasserting itself. whether you think climate change is human caused or not (yes, i'm giving a HUGE benefit of the doubt here) the FACT is that the climate is changing and we have to prepare for it and mitigate risk of exascerbating things where possible.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 17, 2007 1:03:10 GMT -5
Ed.... I went to your link and got the following message: "The document you requested can not be found or is undergoing routine maintenance."
But regardless of what the document said, a couple questions. 1. Why do you put the word consensus in quotes? Are you trying to imply there is no consensus? That would be an absurd and indefensible conclusion. Even the UN.. which can hardly agree on anything, has issued a series of reports via the IPCC that document the impact of climate change around the world and the impact of human actitivty on climate change. 2. Why is it that Republicans try to make this into a Republican vs. Democrat issue? The actual consensus is overwhelming and worldwide. This is not a Democratic party issue. This is an issue recognized Globally. Do you think it is a coincidence that the only group of any size anywhere in the world that actually denies global warming is the Republican party of the USA, and -- coincidentally, the current leadership of the Republican party is deeply in bed with the oil industry -- Houston, Saudis, Halliburton, etc? Ed, if you are really interested in the truth, there is a wealth of reports from highly respected sources. These are easily accessible. The disagreement is not weather human activity is causing climate change, that is a given. The disagreements are only about how quickly and drastically human activity is impacting our globe.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2007 10:06:56 GMT -5
"The disagreement is not weather human activity is causing climate change, that is a given. The disagreements are only about how quickly and drastically human activity is impacting our globe."
First off, the disagreement IS about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity. There is no doubt that, in the short run, temperatures have risen but there is a great question as to whether this is a normal pattern such as has been seen over many centuries or whether man is causing it. Scientific groups have declared there is a consensus that it is man made, but there are some "experts" who disagree with that consensus but whenever they try to raise objections they are drowned out by those who declared the consensus. Consensus has no place in scientific activity. Scientific activity should be free to challenge any consensus that exists and not be pilloried for doing so. The belief that warming is caused by human activity is based on theories about how it's caused, backed up by some scientific data. Other data do not support that belief. For instance, why is it that Mars and Venus are also experiencing warming? Could it, and what's happening on earth, be related to activity on the sun? Seems logical to at least explore that line of reasoning. My purpose in starting this thread was to say that, despite consensus, it is not universally accepted in the scientific community that warming is caused by human beings and to remind all that 30 years ago the scientific community had a consensus that we were about to enter the next ice age. And, you will notice I did not insult those who have a different opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2007 10:15:21 GMT -5
And, you will notice I did not insult those who have a different opinion. C'mon easyed - don't go soft on us! Insulting those with a different opinion is what makes Hoyatalk fun!
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 17, 2007 10:49:32 GMT -5
Consensus has no place in scientific activity. Scientific activity should be free to challenge any consensus that exists and not be pilloried for doing so. The belief that warming is caused by human activity is based on theories about how it's caused, backed up by some scientific data. Other data do not support that belief. For instance, why is it that Mars and Venus are also experiencing warming? Could it, and what's happening on earth, be related to activity on the sun? Seems logical to at least explore that line of reasoning. My purpose in starting this thread was to say that, despite consensus, it is not universally accepted in the scientific community that warming is caused by human beings and to remind all that 30 years ago the scientific community had a consensus that we were about to enter the next ice age. And, you will notice I did not insult those who have a different opinion. First, are you out of your mind?? Consensus reports are extraordinarily valuable scientific resources! Do you have a better system than assembling a group of actual experts to look at actual data to come up with what they judge the best answer to a problem? What's more, who ever said consensus reports can't be challenged? You put together a more convincing report than the scores that are currently available, and I will believe it. Second, yes, you are absolutely right that we don't know for sure what is causing our climate to change. What we do know, however, is that there is incontrovertable evidence that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising due to unnatural causes (e.g. humans). Co2, as you undoubtedly know, is a greenhouse gas, whose atmospheric levels are indesputedly linked to the earth's average temperature. So what you're saying is that you think natural variability is behind the current warming trends despite this overwhelming evidence. Fine. Great. I disagree. But so what? What you shouldn't disagree about is whether we should attempt to curb our emissions of greenhouse gasses (and specifically Co2) especially in response to what is going on. Even if the trend is 'natural', our behavior is at the very least exacerbating it. That is a fact. So why should we sit here and knock "consenus" reports because you don't like them. I would rather get beyond the arguing and start to do something about it. (Also, we have explored the solar radiation line of reasoning--along with almost every other possible lines of reasoning--and its within its normal range. Trust me, you're not the first person to try to come up with alternative explanations for the warming we're seeing.)
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2007 12:42:37 GMT -5
"Co2, as you undoubtedly know, is a greenhouse gas, whose atmospheric levels are indesputedly linked to the earth's average temperature."
It is not INDESPUTEDLY linked to the earth's average temperature. It is merely a theory that many believe in while some others don't.
"So what you're saying is that you think natural variability is behind the current warming trends despite this overwhelming evidence. Fine. Great. I disagree. But so what? "
No, I'm saying there is evidence to support the belief that the cause of warming trends is natural variability such as sun activity. I did not say this is what I believe.
"What you shouldn't disagree about is whether we should attempt to curb our emissions of greenhouse gasses (and specifically Co2) especially in response to what is going on. Even if the trend is 'natural', our behavior is at the very least exacerbating it. That is a fact."
Not a fact. I do disagree with curbing our emissions of greenhouse gasses, like Co2. Implementing such a policy by the U.S. would have monumental impacts on our economy and, from studies conducted, will have only a minimal effect. While China is putting a zillion coal-fired power plants online each year, what the U.S. might do is small potatoes (spelled with an e). And, since animal flatulence causes more Co2 emissions than carbon fuels, what's your recommended course of action? Furthermore, I'm not convinced people living in North Dakota, Greenland or Siberia are that much afraid of the temperatures rising.
"Also, we have explored the solar radiation line of reasoning--along with almost every other possible lines of reasoning--and its within its normal range."
So you have an explanation as to why Mars and Venus are warming?
"First, are you out of your mind??"
So thoughful of you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2007 13:06:13 GMT -5
Not a fact. I do disagree with curbing our emissions of greenhouse gasses, like Co2. Implementing such a policy by the U.S. would have monumental impacts on our economy and, from studies conducted, will have only a minimal effect. Monumental impacts on our economy? Okay... What if there were energy options that were more efficient, and created jobs, AND were inherently better for the environment? Denmark has had continually strong economic growth, record-low unemployment, and has not increased its energy consumption since the 1970s. Why? Mostly due to a focus on clean, renewable energy sources, particularly wind power. They've created a ton of jobs developing these technologies (one Danish company - Vestas - produces 1/3 of the world's wind mills.) and continue to be leaders in the percentage of their energy that comes from renewable sources. Sounds like a win-win-win to me. With little or no impact on their economy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 17, 2007 13:30:13 GMT -5
(hmm, not sure why I'm jumping into one of these, but what the hell....)
See, here is the problem with "consensus." Scientifically, it IS a good thing. Politically, it is not.
All consensus means is that there is a majority of agreement on a certain issue. It does not mean that the issue is resolved, that there is unanimous agreement, that there is no room for alternatives, or that anyone who doesn't buy into the "consensus" must be a wack-job, in someone's pocket, or both.
Why are the afrementioned gentlemen at the beginning of this thread "scientologists"? Only because they changed their opinion? If not, we must assume they were "scientologists" before as well, right? So they were wrong also when they thought global warming was an imminent crisis, right? But no, they have a different idea, so they must have been bought or had some sort of lobotomy. That is disingenuous.
Consider this. AP and major news organizations report a major chunk of the Antarctic ice sheet melting recently. Fine. But did AP also report the numerous and recent scientific studies (not done by Halliburton, by the way) which indicate that the precipitation in and growth of the Antarctic ice shelf is more than offsetting those areas that are melting or breaking off? Of course not, because it doesn't serve the "consensus."
Or this. I've read a number of global warming reports, including the recent one from the UN. Many of them state nuclear power as a top recommendation to offset harmful atmospheric emissions, citing it as cheap, safe, efficient, clean, and available immediately. (Yes, it has a pretty severe downside, but if your only argument against it is, say, Chernobyl, I don't think that reflects a knowledge of how much safer this fuel source is today.) Yet, funny how that never seems to come up in the political discussions of how we can cut down on fossil fuel emissions.
I am not pointing these things out to say that I don't believe in evidence that supports the conclusion that man-made influences are causing climate change. I point them out to say that there is other evidence as well. It does not come from nutbars, but it is routinely characterized as such. Why? Well, if you think that the people who argue AGAINST global warming are the only ones who are thinking about money or who are in someone's pocket or who have their own agenda, then you are being naive. Scientific consensus is a good thing. It is equally important to allow voices in the room that do not agree with that consensus and have legitimate contrary opinions. Politics have equated scientific consensus with "proof" or "universal agreement," and that is NOT a good thing.
Remember, it was once scientific consensus that the earth WAS the center of the universe. I'm pretty sure bad things happened on a regular basis to people who questioned that.
Can we talk about the Transformers movie now? I am not sure what I will enjoy more, if it is one of the greatest movies ever, or if it is a monumental Michael Bay disaster. Either way, I expect to be entertained.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 17, 2007 14:58:43 GMT -5
"Co2, as you undoubtedly know, is a greenhouse gas, whose atmospheric levels are indesputedly linked to the earth's average temperature. It is not INDESPUTEDLY linked to the earth's average temperature. It is merely a theory that many believe in while some others don't. "The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in warming the Earth's surface was first demonstrated by Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Scientific data have since established that, for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperatures have closely tracked with atmospheric CO2 concentrations." -May 2001 National Academy of Sciences report commissioned by the White House. Look, if you want to start calling into question basic scientific findings as a justification for inaction I really don't know what to say. You don't think people in North Dakota, Greenland, or Siberia are concerned about climate change? I think they are. In fact, people in places like Siberia are probably just as concerned as we are, if not more. They stand to lose a lot if the permafrost melts. Just like the people in Greenland who stand to lose a lot if glaciers melt and/or sea levels rise. What's more this argument is stunning in its callousness and short-sightedness. Yeah, winters in select parts of the world might get more mild. This doesn't even address the fact that many northerly places like you mention rely on industries made possible by their harsh climate. Nor does it address the regions that will be adversely affected. What will happen to Bangladesh, for example? That entire freaking country sits almost at sea level. I'm just not sure why you are choosing to view this as an 'us against them' battle. The fact is we are the pretty big part of the problem but so is the rest of the world. Global environmental problems can, however, be solved when people work together towards a common goal. Remember the Ozone hole? All it took was a pretty simple discovery (and a nobel prize) to convince people that our CFCs were directly responsible for it. The developed world took the lead and ended the rampant use of CFCs. Developing countries took longer, but eventually did the same. Pretty cool story, actually. Although I guess it might have just all been a huge coincidence, right?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 18, 2007 16:06:24 GMT -5
Great points by Cam & Excitable -- Ireland (Europe's strongest growing economy) and Costa Rica (best economy in C. America) are two other examples that "going green" so to speak can be very good for the economy.
ed, are you saying we should do nothing about global climate change because there is disagreement about what's causing it? Don't you think it's possible that humans, if not directly responsible (despite all the evidence that shows that we are), are exascerbating a natural phenomenon? Don't you think changes should be made to address that?
Don't you think climate change will have much more drastic, long-term negative effects on US and global economics than trying to deal with it now instead of later?
I've been doing interdisciplinary research on this topic since I was a senior in high school (ecology, biology, geomorphology, other science, policy, law, and econ) and recently wrote an article on ecosystem services assessment in the context of flood protection along the gulf coast. It's absolutely staggering to read stories about how much the environment's changed conditions on a very local level in low-lying coastal communities around the world, and HOW MUCH IT'S COSTING to deal with it, when we could have prevented much of it by being more environmentally conscious.
Well, the opportunity is here now: dealing with climate change is our generation's environmental challenge, just like conserving public lands (leading to creation of National Parks, Forests, etc.) was in our grandparents generation, and just like pollution was in the 1960's-70's (leading to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.). I think we can and will do better than our parents and grandparents did, and I think we can do it by recognizing that you can benefit both the economy and the environment by making the right choices.
And FWIW, my mom studied under Dr. Sherwood Roland, the man that discovered the ozone hole. It's a family thing :-).
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on May 18, 2007 17:12:34 GMT -5
At least one (admittedly liberal) North Dakotan cares.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 19, 2007 12:30:11 GMT -5
Coast, I respect your opinion as it represents your views after years of study. I also respect the opinions of some who disagree with you and also have data to support their positions. Here's another one: www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 19, 2007 12:55:44 GMT -5
Regardless of global warming, our economy does need to make a massive shift away from its dependence on fossil fuels. Our addiction to oil is a huge national security issue.
Our economy today depends on cheap oil. We only have cheap oil because oil exporting countries keep a steady supply of oil flowing on the world market. Even if they're not exporting directly to us, the fact that they are exporting at all keeps world prices low enough for our economy to function. If that oil were to ever stop flowing, it would have a massive negative impacts for our economy (see 1973).
Now most conservatives hear the words "oil" and "national security" and immediately start shouting "IRAQ WASN'T ABOUT OIL!!!!". Fine. I personally think that oil was a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, although it wasn't a leading factor. But for the purposes of this argument, let's just say that Iraq and oil are two seperate issues.
What are not two seperate issues are Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ruling family is one of the most oppresive rulers in the entire world. When we ask the question 'why do the terrorists hate us?', a large part of the answer lies with our support of brutally harsh regimes such as the Saudis. Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from? Mostly from Saudi Arabia. Where is Bin Laden from? Saudi Arabia. Their hatred for us is in large part an extension of their hatred for the Saudi ruling family. Why do we ahve to support the Saudi ruling family? One reason: oil.
If we could kick the oil habit, we would be able to end our support for hated regimes like the Saudis (we could also ignore that fat nutjob down in Venezuela). Heck, we could pretty much forget about the entire Middle East, and if we don't bug them they'd be a lot less likely to bug us (I'm basically just repeating the argument of the guy who headed the CIA's Bin Laden desk for years). So forget the environmental stuff, the US has an even bigger reason to look to alternative energy. The environmental benefits would just be a nice side-effect.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 19, 2007 15:46:50 GMT -5
Stig, I completely agree with you that we need to put into place a long-term strategy to disengage from the need for oil from the Persian Gulf and other foreign areas. Jimmy Carter made this one of his goals when he was President. See what happened?
But first of all we must recognize that this is a very long-range strategy. We will not do this overnight. And, it must not be done by government mandates which are made for political reasons with no chance of success To merely state we are going to reduce our dependence on Gulf oil by X % by Y date is a nothing strategy. We will not be successful until it becomes economically feasible to do so, so the function of government in this should be to offer long-term economic incentives for companies to PRODUCE, for instance, automobiles that run on things other than oil derivatives. Notice I say produce; we've already poured many dollars into research and that's a never-ending "this looks promising so send more money to investigate further". Government should make economic incentives then get out of the way and let industry figure out the best ways and let them fight for their share of the ultimate rewards when they finally produce things.
I've used the automobile as an example but it applies to other things where lots of oil is used: manufacturing, agriculture, etc.
A long-term strategy must also include nuclear energy. In this country we have not had a fatality from nuclear power plants ever and nuclear energy today has the capability of having a major impact on our need for foreign oil. When was the last time we built a new nuclear plant for generating electricity? Years ago. Safe nuclear energy has been and will continue to be practical and possible. We even have 50? nuclear submarines and some nuclear surface ships in the U.S. Navy, operated by sailors who are trained to do so safely.
The next thing is that talking about windmills and the like have will no major impact on the above. Makes good soundbites but you're not going to see major saving in that approach, even if the residents of Santa Barbara or Cape Cod were to allow you to put them offshore.
The next thing to consider is that the above is a long-term strategy that will not solve the near-term needs of our economy. We must be willing to drill inside the U.S., also offshore and in Alaska and we must be willing to allow industry to build new refineries - and, to accept the short-term disadvantages. This is the major reason we now are so dependent on foreign oil: we have not allowed new drilling or new refineries to be built. Duh!
I recognize that new drilling and new refineries run head-long into environmental concerns and I'm not recommending this as a long-term solution. But, five years from now (or ten) we are not going to have much in the way of alternatives fuels or the like to have any significant impact on our dependence on foreign oil. The exception to this is nuclear energy that could be had if the economic payoffs are there and we recognize these plants can be safe.
To accomplish the above short- and long-term goals we must have a strategy that integrates the two such that the long-term benefits to industry are much greater than to the short-term, oil-dependent one.
Finally, it's time we stopped blaming "big oil" for the mess we're in. Politicians made the mess.
Having gotten long in this comment, it might be well if admin made a separate thread if desired.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 20, 2007 11:39:14 GMT -5
--While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, [Gov. Brian] Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." -- george will, wapost 4/2/06 Want to know the original quote from that September 1975 NY Times piece that warns of "the return to another ice age"?? "Recent long-term predictions of climate change have been contradictory. Some forecasters believe a cooling trend has begun that may mark the return to another ice age. Others say a natural 80-year cycle is nearing its coolest phase and that a marked warming is in store, reinforced by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide from fuel burning." Basically, I wouldn't put too much faith in George Will's interpretation of the situation.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on May 20, 2007 21:45:18 GMT -5
All I know is that the 2 Bratwursts that I had for dinner tonight aren't currently helping the greenhouse gas situation.
|
|