Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends

Mary

I'm no scientist, but I find it difficult to belief that anyone can sit here and state that they don't believe all the pollution that man has created in the last hundred years or so, isn't having a detrimental effect on this planet. If we eat nothing but garbage decade after decade, it's going to have a horrendous effect on our physical health. If we're creating garbage decade after decade on earth, it's going to have a horrendous effect on the physical and geological nature of the planet, end of story.
Would anyone deny that eating nothing but fast food, chocolate bars, cakes, pies, icecream, french fries, isn't going to impact our health? Then why don't we apply the same logic to global warming?
Frank75

Abaddon:
The article about the Noble Prize notably fails to mention any Noble Prize for the sciences that was awarded to a theory later found to be without merit. This is the point I was making; the Noble Prize is awarded over cautiously:- as your own link illustrates.
Wikipedia:Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949 for his development of prefrontal leucotomy. In the United States, a modified version of this procedure, often referred to as the "ice pick lobotomy", was instituted in a highly unethical manner, and was performed somewhat indiscriminately. The procedure has fallen into disrepute and was later prohibited in several countries.
I like the way you handled this. Dismissive as usual. You argued that Baliunas must be a crank/quack for her contrarian views on CFC's BECAUSE Nobel awards were given to 3 CFC scientists for their work. What kind of foundational argument is that?
I merely pointed to Wikipedia's collection of controversies to point out the ridiculousness of such a position of certitude. Your reasoning would have us conclude that unless the science that has since called into question the work of Moniz, were themselves given the Nobel prize, his Nobel prize somehow trumps the present "disrepute" of his work! Can you not acknowledge that Nobel prizes no matter how they scrutinise the selection process or what category involved, can later become scandalous after other information comes to light? Whether talking about Kissinger's involvement in war mongering operations coming to light or the one involving Moniz noted above. Time will tell. That is all I was saying.
The experience of Einstein's stormy relationship with Nobel is grounds enough for dismissing your assumptions about the institution. Einstein and the Nobel Committee:Authority vs.Expertise
The whole CFC connection with the ozone layer discussion is still not over. I am not arguing in favor of scepticism of the merit for the Nobel prize. Obviously scandal is rare by comparison to the number of awards granted. Nor do I question the research, conclusions and science of Molina, Crutzen & Rowland, as I lack the expertise to do so. I just encourage people to be critical thinkers and apply scepticism about the absolute claims made by scientific theorists or their cheering section. Even award winning ones. My upbringing inside the Watchtower reinforces that position.
The jury is still out on CFC and ozone in the real world of the upper atmosphere until we pass the threshold years of 2024, 2050 and 2068. 2024 is argued to be the year that we start to see a turnaround in the ozone, 2050 is an arbitrary target date for seeing the hole close while 2068 is supposed to see the end of the problem. You and I will likely be gone by then so it is our children who will know whether the CFC ban was justified along with criticism that Baliunas and others put forward during the debate over them.
Frank75
Brother Apostate

Reduce Global Warming- Eat Beef:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Reduce Global Warming- Energy from Cow Patties:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0605/ijge/gunning.htm
Despite what some may pronounce, the Scientific Community has in no way closed the books on the question of the extent of mankind's contribution to Global Warming. To suggest otherwise is pure poppycock.
Building predictive climate models is difficult work, there are many factors to include, and testing them requires at least a decade to determine if the models were correct in their prediction(s). The position of the AASC:
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
Transcript for the debate between Lindzen, Stott and Crichton versus Somerville, Schmidt and Ekurzwei on the motion “Global Warming is Not Crisis” is online here . (Incidentally, I much prefer to do my own research rather than have some self-proclaimed know-it-all who buys into Global Warming Hysteria on JWD tell me what is good and bad science.)
From a popular meteorological website:
"Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.
Nor has the peer review process been squeaky clean.
An April, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, included this paragraph expressing his own frustration at the peer review process: "And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen."
Source:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
BA- Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method, not jumping on the bandwagon of some silly biased group with an agenda that fits our preconceived notions. There is still no proof that humans can significantly alter Global Warming.
PS- The bottom line is- more and better data are needed for a definitive answer, as stated previously.
Brother Apostate

Mary, you stated:
I'm no scientist, but I find it difficult to belief that anyone can sit here and state that they don't believe all the pollution that man has created in the last hundred years or so, isn't having a detrimental effect on this planet. If we eat nothing but garbage decade after decade, it's going to have a horrendous effect on our physical health. If we're creating garbage decade after decade on earth, it's going to have a horrendous effect on the physical and geological nature of the planet, end of story.
Would anyone deny that eating nothing but fast food, chocolate bars, cakes, pies, icecream, french fries, isn't going to impact our health? Then why don't we apply the same logic to global warming?

I don't believe anyone on this thread is stating that they don't think pollution has a detrimental effect on the Earth.
The discussion is regarding how much mankind contributes to Global Warming

If
humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%? Then ask yourself whether in the big picture GHGs even come close to periodic solar fluctuations or other natural sources in causing Global Warming. (I'm not talking scientific predictions here, rather, real world case studies ex-post facto).
Should we adopt all kinds of economic and technological upheaval, only to find it had little to no effect on Global Warming? What is at stake is more Government interference based on a political agenda.
Trade Big Oil for Big Natural Gas, Big Nuclear Energy or Big Hydroelectric Power and you have all kinds of new environmental damage. Think about it.
Trade Big Oil for Wind Power or Solar Power and you have expensive to install and maintain solutions with a short shelf life, not to mention, Solar Power only captures energy during daylight, Wind Power only captures energy when it's windy. Both then store energy in batteries- which are not environmentally friendly either.
Hybrid vehicles are technologically complex, so they are expensive and high maintenance in the long run, what consumers think they are saving in gasoline will be be more than displaced with maintenance, repairs, and battery replacements.
Ethanol sounds good until you realize the amount of fertilizer and ensuing leaching into waterways would create another sort of environmental problem, with potential for disaster. Today's agriculture practices are not environmentally friendly, in numerous other ways as well.
Landfills are a terrible way of dealing with refuse. Recycling should be mandated, not voluntary. Everone should compost. Any rubbish left after recycling and composting is minimal, and could be incinerated.
To some, it is a republican/democrat thing, or left/right thing, to me it is a common sense thing. Find out first if mankind can do anything about it. Then, before leaping to the next big technology, look at the cons of that move before doing so, if it makes sense doing so at all.
BA-Lives a very green lifestyle.
Brother Apostate
SixofNine

"what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%?"
Are you really claiming to believe that we can't measure and quantify human induced GHG's with a reasonable degree of accuracy?
When a scientist or researcher says something like "China is becoming industrial at a predictively exponential rate, and they are going to, at this rate, be adding X amount of ghg's to the atmosphere by the year 2020", while no one expects that statement to be 100% accurate (no matter what numbers it states or whoever states it), but do you really think that in the above sentence the terms "rate" and "x amount of ghg's" are totally arbitrary, faith based comments?
C02 and methane etc.. are real, measurable things. This is basic physics, not quantum physics. If one cow produces (x) amount of methane gas, how much do ten cows produce? If one powerplant operating 60% of the time produces (x) amount of C02, how much will that plant produce operating 100% of the time.
I get very suspicious when people try to tell me that measurable things can't be measured. Why would you do that, except for the purpose of misleading?
Also, why would you characterize wind energy as having a "short shelf life"?
"Hybrid vehicles are technologically complex, so they are expensive and high maintenance in the long run, what consumers think they are saving in gasoline will be be more than displaced with maintenance, repairs, and battery replacements."
Really? What is so "technologically complex" about them? Hell, some people build their own hybrid cars in their garage. And while they may not be cheaper in pure money terms at this point in time, manufacturers are already able to produce them competitively, so they will undoubtably become cheaper, battery technology will only get better, lighter, cheaper, and even more long-life, and manufacturers already produce hybrids with long full-powertrain warranties.
For someone who "lives a very green lifestyle", you sure are interested in adding naysaying to discussions of ways humans can do better. cf: "Solar Power only captures energy during daylight"? lol, uhm... yeah. Do you have a point?
"Find out first if mankind can do anything about it."
Clearly the answer is yes.

Then, before leaping to the next big technology, look at the cons of that move before doing so".
Ok, sure. But someone whose head is far up their ass about the need for change, isn't going to be able to see the "cons" any more clearly than he or she sees the benefits to be realized from change. And someone whose cash flow is derived from industry that will profit from business-as-usual for as-long-as-possible, has a vested interest in not accurately weighing cost vs benefits of change.
In other words, they'll lie or misinform, pass those lies on in a fashion that will get the most people believing them to be credible, and then who knows..... you might even see that disinformation show up on an internet discussion board someday. Hell, you might even be the one repeating it.
Brother Apostate

"what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%?
Are you really claiming...blah, blah, blah, blah...I get very suspicious when people try to tell me that measurable things can't be measured. Why would you do that, except for the purpose of misleading?
First and foremost, your reading comprehension needs work. Taking a statement out of context amounts to little more than the straw man you present above. The point I clearly made is not how much the various claims are for what %X humans contribute in terms of GHGs, but instead what %A-Z humans contibute to Global Warming in total. (However, the% of human as opposed to natural sources of GHGs is a minor issue, as well)
What is so "technologically complex" about them? Hell, some people build their own hybrid cars in their garage. And while they may not be cheaper in pure money terms at this point in time, manufacturers are already able to produce them competitively, so they will undoubtably become cheaper, battery technology will only get better, lighter, cheaper, and even more long-life, and manufacturers already produce hybrids with long full-powertrain warranties.
You are buying into the marketing hype. Look, what you miss is that batteries store energy produced by GHG producing energy sources, in a very inefficient manner. The conversion from one form of energy, to storage in a battery, to another form of energy for use in an automobile will always be less efficient than converting one form of energy, to another form of energy for use in an automobile. Replace "automobile" with anything else, still a true statement. And batteries themselves create a huge potential for pollution after their useful life, which is relatively short and increasingly less efficient over their useful life. Incidentally, care to guess what a replacement battery for a Prius costs?
For someone who "lives a very green lifestyle", you sure are interested in adding naysaying to discussions of ways humans can do better.
I define "better", as a 30,000 foot view that takes into account the pros and cons, not just the marketing hype.
"Find out first if mankind can do anything about it."-BA
Clearly the answer is yes. -6of9
Not only if, of course, but what. Will what mankind does, vs not do, about it make the environment better or worse? Again, step back and look at the big picture.
But someone whose head is far up their ass about the need for change, isn't going to be able to see the "cons" any more clearly than he or she sees the benefits to be realized from change. And someone whose cash flow is derived from industry that will profit from business-as-usual for as-long-as-possible, has a vested interest in not accurately weighing cost vs benefits of change.
And someone whose head is far up their ass about adopting any change without evaluating the pros and cons will likely create an even more intolerable situation. And someone whose cash flow is derived from industry that will profit from a hastily leapt to conclusion, has a vested interest in not accurately weighing cost vs benefits of change as well.
In other words, they'll lie or misinform, pass those lies on in a fashion that will get the most people believing them to be credible, and then who knows..... you might even see that disinformation show up on an internet discussion board someday. Hell, you might even be the one repeating it.
Right back at 'cha, 6of9!!!
BA- Responding to another disciple of Marketing-induced hysteria
PS- Chill out, take a deep breath, and think.
Qcmbr

Ok I'm reading the report from the IPCC as provided by Abaddon. Here is my initial thoughts and before I start I'm being critical of it as you'll see but it's not the science I'm criticising here but the actual report:

Part 1 (turn off now this is long and boring!)

"The work of the IPCC is backed by the worldwide scientific community"

What does that mean? Is there an identifiable grouping of the scientific community who have a single antithetical position ? I suspect that is baloney although it may well be true that the majority of scientists who are involved in climatology or related sciences may believe in the work of the IPCC but I feel this 'backed by the ..' type statement is claiming to be more authoratitive than is warranted. I'm sure many in the worldwide scientific community disagree with the IPCC. The statement of support from 16 science academies is fine but the silence of other academies (of which there are many more) also suggests that backing is not really universal though that is only an inferance of mine.

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects current thinking.."

This seemingly succint point is possibly true (though I thought 1960 - 1970 was a period of global cooling but nevertheless that's another issue) if the gas they are talking about was water vapour and that the increases were due to solar activity and not human input. It would also be true if the increases in CO2 were largely from natural sources such as the sea. What is at stake in this IPCC approach is the '..risk of human induced climate change' NOT the concentrations of greenhouse gases which may well be from other sources and may also not be as important as the current modelling indicates (i.e. the statement uses the word 'likely' to indicate that there is still considerable debate on the subject - does this make it a scientific fact or a sientific likelhood? - there may be little difference but we are discussing incredibly important things here not unimportant but interesting facts.) I suspect many scientists will agree that global warming is increasing due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases such as water vapour but disagree on the human causative effects.

"..the IPCC 2001 report included a summary for policymakers..which was agreed sentence by sentence at meetings of the governments..."

Fine but this alone does no more than describe the process - the same thing was done at the Council of Nicea. In effect it was to remove the detailed facts and create bullet points for politicians to use...

"The purpose of the summaries was to provide an accurate and balanced assessment of the scientific information ...in a manner that is clear, understandable and relevant to the policy process."

While this isn't necessarily bad it doesn't add weight to what is being said it only suggests that policy pointers where given to the governments awaiting these reports, in other words the IPCC is digesting the facts and repackaging them for governments in the form of suggested policy. In other industries this is called lobbying. As a fall back the IPCC working group suggests that the technical report contains sufficient summaries of the technical data but agrees these are "not specifically directed at policy."

"..the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.."

This statement would get destroyed here and quite rightly so. The main points that consensus has been reached are not listed here, there may be many main points that can be agreed that have nothing to do with human induced risk - point such as global warming is happening, CO2 concentrations are rising, human input to the CO2 levels are increasing but none of these main points may agree on the actual risk. It may well be that a scientist agrees with the above but says that human CO2 input is rising but overall only has a minimal impact. This scientist would be included in the 'overwhelming majority' without actually agreeing with the 'policy' advocated by the IPCC.

The journal of Science and papers published on climate change are then cited as proof that most scientists are in agreement with global warming majorly impacted by human input in the last 50 years. This does not give us the relevant balance to check that the Journal of Science is not in some way biased, grants for research are not biased or that universities may not also express a bias. What worries me is that .."none rejected it [human impact major]" ..since there are plenty of scientists who do plainly disagree. Where did their research go? Having '928' pro human impact papers V 0 is so anomolous as to make one wary. The immediate warning bells go on when the next summation of opposing scientists points out that indeed there are some scientists who disagree (the opposite inferrance than was made regarding the 928 v 0 papers argument) but that they are less worthy of scientific endorsement because they '..undermine the science of climate change..' and some are funded by the 'US oil indusry'. To my thinking the US oil industry has funded many worthwhile scientific projects (geological world surveys etc..) and that does not demean them as sponsors of scientific research but of more interest that the accusation is actually about undermining the 'science of climate change.' Isn't that what scientific peer review is about? Testing and challenging each hypothesis. If indeed the IPCC version of climate change is based on faulty science then they should try and undermine it, however, if the science is sound then they should welcome challenge without slur. The US oil industry is no angel but then the sponsors of the IPCC may not be either. If the 'US oil industry' is right however, then there will be a lot less money flowing the IPCC way - as much as the oil industry may have a self interested bias so may the IPCC.

The statement that 'they[not specified but implied as those who disagree with the IPCC]' disagree with the Kyoto Protocol is rather divisive - many may agree with Kyoto but disagree with the IPCC. The Kyoto Protocol is packaged neatly as a single soundbite solution of 'urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions' while failing to acknowledge that many may disagree with Kyoto not because they don't want to reduce emissions but may believe (as I firmly do) that the human cost involved can be better applied elsewhere and that reducing emissions will harm more people than it will help, will reduce man's global warming impact minutely and is a political distraction to more pressing concerns but I digress.

"Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required..'

What? Many disagree not simply as opposition to some consensus but in opposition to the policy advocated by the IPCC - the IPCC statement here is smoke and mirrors that diverts the point away from the fact that there is scientific and political opposition that is not based on negating the science but for political and practical reasons. They also suggest the black and white side to the argument that is not true - many who agree that urgent action is required do not see that action being in the area of greenhouse gases. This is IPCC faulty logic as many of the 2000 contributing scientists may well disagree with the IPCC report and feel they have been misquoted or badly summarised in the 'policy' sections. This is not a them and us situation this article seeks to create clear water that really does not exist. There lift of a quote from a petition against Kyoto does not do enough to identify why that petition thought Kyoto would '..damage the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind' though I can think of plausible reasons and suggest that the IPCC statement that this '..directly contradicts the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report' merely suggests that two polar views are being expressed whereas there may well be scenarios where both stances would be wrong (e.g. development of underdeveloped countries V overdevelopment in developed countries.) There is also a 'sneaky' (and I mean that loosely not maliciously) inclusion in the IPCC quote that says reducing emissions would "..reduce damages caused by climate change.." What damages? Climate change doesn't per se cause damages - this planet is in constant change and the notion of damage is not really relevant - if they suggest that it may overwhelm our ability to adapt as a species they may have a point but 'damages' is just a throwaway word. The implication that climate change is 'bad' and damaging is biased and misleading. Rapid climate change is what we go through every year, we call them seasons. Global climate may well change rapidly over time but that suggests we are helpless to adapt which is exactly where we excell and apparently according to evolutionary scientists so does nature.
hillary_step

The 'Moral Maze' a BBC Radio 4 debate in which experts present their views on a subject of the day dealt with Gloabl Warming, pros and cons this week.
Against the backdrop of this thread it makes interesting listening :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml
Click 'listen to latest edition' in the right hand panel towards the top.
HS
SixofNine

Your words exactly: If humans stopped or vastly reduced all greenhouse gas (GHG) emmisions immediately- what if the percentage of manmade GHGs turned out to be 2%? On the other hand, what if it turned out to be 20%, or even 50%?

Nothing taken out of context here. You very clearly were speaking about amounts of "manmade GHGs" vs "all greenhous gas (GHG)" or you were speaking very unclearly.
Which is it?
Just a little tip for Bro, my reading comprehension is very good.
Then you threw this in: "Then ask yourself whether in the big picture GHGs even come close to periodic solar fluctuations or other natural sources in causing Global Warming."
The earth is in fact always warmed by a blanket of ghg's (one of which is water). Adding to the thickness of that blanket by adding ghg's to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Global Warming Hysteria

Share this