Global Warming is really starting to run out of gas

at the turn of the century, computer models predicted a loss of a million square miles of sea ice by the year 2050.... that level of loss actually happened a few months ago.

 

Like many times before, the people on the wrong side of the argument just disappear when they know they've been licked. For some strange reason they never consider coming on here and saying, "I've seen the light - I was wrong".

Instead, they just stop responding. Because no matter what we say or what evidence we provide they will never change their mind. Isn't that the definition of fundamentalism? Isn't that "how religion poisons everything"? I think so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]530733[/snapback]</div>

I think your use of the term "alarmist" is unfortunate and counter-productive, as it doesn't help your case in any objective ways.

If you'd like to refute the science, fine, do so. I'm all for detailed analyses and graphs and charts and data points and spreadsheets and all that good stuff. The more the better for me to make up my own mind whether the problem is real or imagined.

But to apply such a loaded word in your broadbrush and condescending manner, based solely on one news article in your local paper, is FAR from being convincing. Not to mention the presumptive nature of the title of your thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]530733[/snapback]</div>

I defined a mindset that is "unlikely to be altered by any external arguments or contradictory evidence" as fundamentalism.

Global warming deniers are clearly fundamentalists, in my view, under this definition. Similarly, fundamentalism is not uncommon in religion - which I also dislike. That's the relationship I was trying to outline.

I also referenced what Christopher Hitchens points out in his book, that religion [especially fundamentalism] poisons everything.

Basically I'm equating global warming deniers and religious fundamentalists as having the same lame approach to issues and general delusional character.

In effect, denying global warming is like giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalist terrorists - you're supporting the way they think - faith based reasoning (deniers/terrorists) vs. data based reasoning (science).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 25 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]530333[/snapback]</div>

But you used a misleading headline to attack the very existence of GW. Perhaps the media does like to pigeonhole these things when it isn't appropriate, but it doesn't mean the science is wrong.

As kind of a related example I heard something last week about a report saying fires are more severe and common because of global warming. I haven't seen the science on it, and maybe some areas are drying out making fires more likely, but really fires in the U.S. are burning hotter mostly because we've spent the last century suppressing all wildfires no matter what. So now we've got more burnable material and a mix of species living in fire-prone areas that are not resistant to fires, so it's easy for a regular, healthy grassfire to climb into the forest canopy and then you've got real problems, particularly if people build their houses in the middle of all this. I'd like to see if they took that into account into their report, but the little blurb on the news radio didn't cover that at all. So in some cases, people might be looking for things where they don't exist (and my example may or may not fall into that category, which should be determined by peer-review, but that's after the media has had their run with it). Still the vast majority of the research is valid and does come to a common consensus. What the politicians and media do with it is another story.

Agreed. But unless you think the CDC thinks this can lead to more funding, I don't see that they have an agenda in global warming other than legitimate public health.

That wasn't the question. Dberman didn't ask what level of CO2 emission should we attain. The question was, what is the optimum global temperature. For that, it's relevant to society and so theoretically the answer is, as close to what we're used to as possible. (Obviously it's going to rise some amount anyway because it's too late to keep it at stasis.)
But if you want to mandate things, then you mandate a certain CO2 level or rate of emissions or whatever. You may not like Kyoto, but that has measurable values (something like within 10% of 1990 levels of CO2 emissions by 2012). And trying to take my answer on an ideal as somehow representative of ongoing negotiations on hard numbers to reduce climate change is like taking a headline written by some copy editor and using that as a representation of all the hard science being done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]530811[/snapback]</div>

When the AGW scare is over, a certain segment of the population will move on to another crisis. There is far too much money to be made scaring us.

 

"And that's just with AGW. Some on this board, even in this thread, still think we are all doomed by 1960's and 70's fears of over population, global famine, oil peaks, etc."

wow, I wish I could be as ignorant. But, alas, reality and facts keep coming. what a fantasy world it must be...

Knowledge is power. Really.

It saddens me such blather is more published than actual science. Sheesh, are we really in that desparate need for entertainment!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]530811[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. Both sides use too much name-calling.

I'm confused. We're not being alarmist enough for you?

(Peak oil: petroleum went above $90/barrel this week, no sign of stopping. You can say that's because of geopolitical events, but you can bet that if stable countries could produce more oil, they would. Saudi Aramco has said in the past they wanted the price about $35/barrel because above that it gave too much impetus to produce alternative fuels and conservation. Obviously they're not making that target, and if Saudi Arabia can't produce what they want, the rest of the world isn't far behind. Now it's not the end of civilization, but it's the end of cheap oil, which will take some serious readjustment and is the only likely real cure for ever-increasing CO2 emissions, but first we'll rape our land with mountain-top removal for the increasingly expensive coal).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Oct 26 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]530803[/snapback]</div>

Are you sure you sure extreme envionmentalism is not your religion?

Many of you have probably read this, a great article about just such a thing:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-envi...maseligion.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]530811[/snapback]</div>

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm asking for facts in a polite debate. I've never called anyone names, be it "denialist" or "alarmist" or any such things. You can go back to all my posts to verify. (In fact, if you do a search you'll probably find that those words most likely first surfaced in YOUR posts.)

As for your insinuation regarding my "intelligence", I think that alone speaks more about your intelligence than anyone else's. But that's none of my concern.

BTW, I don't even know what the acronym AGW stands for, and could care less. Labels are useful only for shallow discussions, not for deep dives into a complex subject such as global warming.

Once again, refute the science if that's your objective. But please do so with data that have been peer reviewed and verified. That's all I'm saying.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]530823[/snapback]</div>

Rick, there was never anything remotely approaching a scientific consensus about "global cooling". That was a media invention and climate conservatives have agreed with that. Using press articles to state your case only proves that the media loves sensationalism (which no one here is disputing). Many of your other examples (Y2K) for example, are situations where corrective action was taken and a crisis averted. The Y2K example that you repeated cite is particularly specious because there would have been real problems if billions weren't spent updating code to handle 4 digit years.

You could learn a lot from Tim Bikes, who posts peer reviewed articles in reputable journals, and doesn't make claims that he can't back up with a scientific argument of sorts. Quoting media fabrications is pointless because it doesn't speak to the science at all. That's the only thing that really matters in this debate. The politics is meaningless in so far as it doesn't taint the science.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 26 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]530827[/snapback]</div>

Interesting read. And it sounds quite reasonable, I agree with at least half of it. Particularly when he says that we must keep religion (ie. unchanging beliefs) out of environmental discussions, and keep it based on science. But he's dead wrong if his "environmental religion" includes scientific research that confirms global warming is happening and that humans have a significant role in the warming trend. People are set in their comfortable paths, they don't budge until it's clear to them there's a real danger up ahead, that's why we have the "doomsday prophets" getting increasingly shrill about the danger that many just aren't looking at.

He's also wrong about two other points: population and DDT. Over-population is still a problem, even if it levels off today and doesn't increase another person. Environmentally, we're carrying too much on this earth to give everybody a decent standard of living. The people who are concerned about the aging population (and diminishing populations in some countries) are concerned about a completely different aspect - economic growth. We always need young people for our civilization and our culture to continue, that's not something a reasonable environmentalist would argue against, but we just haven't needed as many as we've been getting, particularly pre-80's for western countries. Urban and rich cultures have greatly reduced their reproductive rate (partly because of the popular attention over-population had been given), but the poor haven't, and it's still a problem.
And for DDT, maybe we over-reacted in malaria-stricken regions, and he's right it hasn't been proven as a carcinogen. But it does kill birds, more effectively than they knew even at the time of "Silent Spring". I remember seeing a Bald Eagle in the 70's and that was a real unusual sighting even in our rural area far from areas that used DDT. They banned DDT and the eagles are back. With widespread use, insects become immune to DDT, so at the levels we were using it, it wouldn't have helped for long anyway. Since Crichton is exposing things, I wonder why he didn't expose the truth that it was never actually banned in Africa? It's use there is returning more and more, but they need to be careful not to over-use it, both for the environmental harm and the insect immunity.
Second-hand smoke is not a health hazard? Well, I haven't studied that issue, but I'm pretty sure he's just blowing smoke on that one.
That we have no way of controlling greenhouse gases so why even try????? That one is clearly and unequivocally false! First, we can impose a gas tax (or at least stop subsidies to big oil and big coal) and discover all the ways that industry can save fossil fuels and create alternatives to it. If everybody drove a Prius or a similar car that met their needs, we'd reduce our petroleum usage by at least 1/3rd, and that's without any sacrifice, just saving money that would otherwise sponsor terrorists. (Yes, I know some people need pickup trucks or utility vans for their work, but I also know that among all my farmer and logging friends, they have their trucks when they need them but they also have their compact cars that they use for the majority of their trips.)
He is right in some respects that urbanites have been divorced from nature (I grew up on a farm and now live in the city, so I see both sides.) As mentioned, I have friends and relatives who are farmers, loggers and do some hunting/trapping on the side. I know where our food comes from, and the wood for our newspaper inserts and suburban houses. But global warming is much bigger than just understanding the food chain and that nature doesn't care if you live. Understanding that just reinforces the knowledge that global warming must be seriously addressed.

I am not a fundamentalist, I read both sides of the arguments, hoping that opponents of AGW can show me we don't need to worry or that it's primarily natural, and I haven't seen anything yet that gives me such hope. There are valid arguments, but they are weak, flawed or out-of-date compared to the AGW studies.

 

I'm at work and only have a second but I would like to state that the bad effects of DDT are the results of it's eventual break down into DDE which is an endocrin disrupter. Look that one up.

I'll pop back in later tonight to exspose the rediculous claims contained within this thread for what they are. Again we have non-scientists claiming information as truths when they have very little to no training in the subjects at hand. So I guess we should all believe journalsists and people like Viking instead of people who spent the better part of the last 20+yrs studying subjects.

I guess all real science died with Niels Bohr and Watson and Crick, the new stuff is all just liberal lies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]530888[/snapback]</div>

So you don't think that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity?
Or is it that the increase of CO2 levels don't affect the climate?

Illinois, as an example, has less than one tenth of one per cent of it's original prairie. 99.9% of its prairies are now farming and urban environments. That's a lot of land that has changed its seasonal behavior and carbon/oxygen cycles. Illinois is not unique, particularly among temperate arable lands. Britain was once forested. We have changed the global landscape. If we can do that to the ground, we can do that to the air.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 24 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]529759[/snapback]</div>

Rick, Rather than buying into the short-sighted thinking of other people, I suggest you try using your own mind. You seem like a smart person. Think about it. We remove hundreds of millions of years of carbon from the ground in about 100 years and place it up in the sky as a known heat trapping atmospheric gas.

How could any one with more than a room temperature IQ take the default position that this is OK or probably OK. Only a moron would make this assumption. Aside from being an incredibly stupid assumption it is massively irresponsible to our children.

We know from ice core samples taken around the world that human activities have raised atmospheric carbon to the highest level in at least 400,000 years. Atmospheric carbon almost perfectly tracks average global temperature. We've raised carbon levels by three times more than what is needed to cause a major ice age in the opposite direction. In other words, the carbon emissions we've already put out are enough to cause something three times stronger than the opposite of a major ice age.

When our kids are suffering 50 years from now, they'll look back on people like you that naively bought into Exxon's arguments about global warming. But they won't be able to do anything since people like you and others who didn't act rationally will be dead and buried.

People who deny global warming, such as yourself, are like those who railed against interracial marriage or the elimination of slavery. They just fade away as they become increasingly irrelevant.

Try thinking for yourself Rick. You seem to pride yourself on your intellectual capacity. Please use it.