the REAL issue with regard to climate change today

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 19 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]408204[/snapback]</div>

So which category does Gore's movie fall into?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]408299[/snapback]</div>

Okay, if you want, let me rephrase slightly. Why are you questioning the motives of climate researchers specifically, rather than any of the hundred other branches of science? Now will you answer the question? Or will you keep trying to sidestep?

You're not questioning it intelligently, though, are you? You're just making snide accusations about scientists' motivations, rather than addressing the data and research. I find this rather ironic, given your initial post on the thread:

:lol: Er, yes, exactly. And now you're just accusing scientists of having dodgy motives.

And still, I don't see why anything you've said couldn't equally be applied to AIDS research, physics research, astronomical research, chemical research... What is it specifically about climate research that makes you think its practitioners are charlatans?

Certainly there are unknowns. We're dealing with predictions here. We don't have a spare Earth to experiment on. There's plenty of scope for questioning the consensus, and I don't doubt for a minute that if someone had some new insight that explained observations better than the theory of man-made global warming, they'd get as much funding as they could handle to test that theory from large sections of industry, even if, as you claim, they couldn't get any from governments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Mar 19 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]408302[/snapback]</div>

self serving fiction

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]408310[/snapback]</div>

It is politics - liberal politics - the politics of the few knowing all trying to extend their control over everybody. it is a power grab - like socialized medicine.

it is the EU trying to become relevant again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]408313[/snapback]</div>

No. Its ignoring opinion and trying to concentrate on the data. Once again:

1. Look at the graph
2. Note the UNPRECEDENTED rise in C02 levels.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties, regardless of your politics.
4. Ergo, there will be a contribution to the greenhouse effect due to the rise in CO2.

Personally I don't care to argue whether the CO2 will harm humans and other species in the planet. I would rather not take the chance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 19 2007, 07:03 AM) [snapback]408279[/snapback]</div>

You have oil companies, opposed to carbon limits, generating over $10 billion profit a QUARTER! (See, Exxon).

And you think there's lots of money in grants?

Puhhhleeezze. The money's in industry.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 19 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]408317[/snapback]</div>

convenient - what if co2 does not "harm humans" but your call to arms causes us to neglect IMMEDIATE human suffering - there are limited resources you would be willing to squander on co2 while humans are starving to death every day, they are getting hiv/aids every day, they are going uneducated every day..... mixed up priorities - but a very liberal approach to supporting your false constructs.

cute, but definately not smart - in fact dangerous for the harm it will cause millions of humans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 19 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]408320[/snapback]</div>

only liberals want call for the government to protect people from themselves - if you are stupid enough to smoke then you are stupid enough not to know or understand or IGNORE the consequences thereof. you know that warning box on the side of each pack - what else do you want? i know, remove tabacco totally - because you want to make decisions for everybody to protect them from themselves.

carbon limits - tell me, who sets them, who do they apply to, how are they set, who controls them?

carbon credits - tell me, what are they, how are they produced, how are they regulated, who controlls and creates laws pertaining to them?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]408324[/snapback]</div>

Nah, let's stay on topic. The real issue with climate change is a successful misinformation campaign on the part of industry:

In 1998, ExxonMobil helped create a small
task force calling itself the “Global Climate Science
Team†(GCST). Members included Randy Randol,
Victory will be achieved when average citizens “understandâ€
(recognize) uncertainties in climate science.
—internal memo by the American Petroleum Institute , 1998
10 l Union of Concerned Scientists
ExxonMobil’s senior environmental lobbyist at
the time, and Joe Walker, the public relations representative
of the American Petroleum Institute.31
One member of the GCST task force, Steven
Milloy, headed a nonprofit organization called the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which
had been covertly created by the tobacco company
Philip Morris in 1993 to manufacture uncertainty
about the health hazards posed by secondhand
smoke.32

A 1998 GCST task force memo outlined an
explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to
manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global
warming33—a strategy that directly emulated
Big Tobacco’s disinformation campaign. Despite
mounting scientific evidence of the changing climate,
the goal the team outlined was simple and
familiar. As the memo put it, “Victory will be
achieved when average citizens understand (recognize)
uncertainties in climate science†and when
public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part
of the ‘conventional wisdom.’â€34 (For full text
of the memo, see Appendix C.)

Regardless of the mounting scientific evidence,
the 1998 GCST memo contended that “if we can
show that science does not support the Kyoto
treaty…this puts the United States in a stronger
moral position and frees its negotiators from the
need to make concessions as a defense against
perceived selfish economic concerns.â€35
ExxonMobil and its partners no doubt understood
that, with the scientific evidence against
them, they would not be able to influence reputable
scientists. The 1998 memo proposed that
ExxonMobil and its public relations partners
“develop and implement a national media relations
program to inform the media about uncertainties
in climate science.â€36

In the years that
followed, ExxonMobil executed the strategy as
planned underwriting a wide array of front organizations
to publish in-house articles by select
scientists and other like-minded individuals to
raise objections about legitimate climate science
research that has withstood rigorous peer review
and has been replicated in multiple independent
peer-reviewed studies—in other words, to attack
research findings that were well established in the
scientific community. The network ExxonMobil
created masqueraded as a credible scientific
alternative, but it publicized discredited studies
and cherry-picked information to present misleading
conclusions.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]408324[/snapback]</div>

Interesting example. How hard did industry fight against the scientists whose research showed that cigarettes caused cancer? For decades the tobacco industry did everything they could to undermine the scientists. But they eventually gave up.

Industry lobbied hard to stop warnings appearing on the pack too. The case of the tobacco industry being lung cancer deniers is probably one of the closest analogies to the current state of the media global warming debate now going on.

Now, I'm totally against banning of any drugs. And I'm against pretty much against all the bans on smoking in pubs, restaurants, etc. I'd legalise cannabis, heroin, cocaine, whatever. As long as people understand the personal risks, they can do what they want to themselves. I think the current war on smokers is wrong and misguided. (And I've never been a smoker myself). But I wouldn't stand by and let the tobacco/alcohol/cocaine industries publish false information about the health risks.

Climate change is similar but different. Industry is still trying to deny the risks. But this time the risk isn't personal, it's universal. It's not protecting someone from themselves, it's protecting everyone from everyone.

What can you do about it? You can legislate, ration, tax and/or subsidise. I can't think of anything else. Any of these will generate squeals from the right wing, who think personal freedom to pollute outweighs any harm to the commons.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is running out of control. It needs to be checked. Peoples' behaviour needs to be changed. This needs a co-ordinated effort. Who's going to co-ordinate this effort? Well, we have this thing called a "democratic government" whose job it is to protect society as a whole. They need to regulate, somehow, dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the same way as they regulate dumping of CFCs, mercury, nuclear waste, whatever.

If, like dberman et al, you regard all actions of government as inherently sinister, then fine, what's a better solution? At the moment the only suggestion I'm hearing is "ignore the scientists and hope they're wrong".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 19 2007, 11:21 AM) [snapback]408342[/snapback]</div>

any dingdong that smokes and thinks its healthy deserves what they get - darwinism baby.

if climate change is universal - how are you going to control china and india? and i do like your construct - protecting everyone from everyone. are you willing to go to war to prevent climate change?

so you are pro war on terror - our soldiers are volunteer - they understand the risks they are taking - you are not protecting them by wanting them to come home. thanks for your support finally.

and prove co2 is harmful - why are other planets in our solar system heating up without humans on them?

i do regard most of govt as sinister - some it necessary - kind of like our founding fathers did.

you need to prove current climate models correct - tell me what the average temp on planet earth will be 2010 and sea levels - please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]408348[/snapback]</div>

There is no denying that the tactic of demanding
“certainty†in every aspect of our scientific
understanding of global warming is a rhetorically
effective one. If manufactured uncertainty and
governmental inaction is the goal, science will
arguably never be “sound enough,†or 100 percent
certain, to justify action to protect public health
or the environment.

Again, the tobacco industry paved the way.
The calculated call for “sound science†was successfully
used by tobacco firms as an integral part
of a tobacco company’s pioneering “information
laundering†scheme. As we now know from internal
tobacco industry documents, a campaign to
demand “sound science†was a key part of a strategy
by the cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris
to create uncertainty about the scientific evidence
linking disease to “second-hand†tobacco smoke,
known in the industry as “environmental tobacco
smoke†or ETS.102 Toward this end, in 1993,
Philip Morris covertly created a front organization
called “The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition†or TASSC.103

Milloy officially closed TASSC’s offices in
1998 as evidence of its role as a front organization
began to surface in the discovery process of litigation
against Big Tobacco.
Given these historical connections,
it is disturbing that ExxonMobil
would continue to associate with
some of the very same TASSC
personnel who had overseen such
a blatant and shameful disinformation
campaign for Big Tobacco.
Thanks in part to Exxon-
Mobil, however, the “sound science” disinformation
campaign continued unabated. Resuscitating
TASSC under the slightly altered name The Advancement
of Sound Science Center (rather than
Coalition), Milloy continues to operate out of
his home in Maryland. Between 2000 and 2004,
ExxonMobil gave $50,000 to Milloy’s Advancement
of Sound Science Center, and another
$60,000 to an organization called the Free Enterprise
Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise
Action Institute), which is also registered to
Milloy’s home address.109 According to its 2004
tax return, this group was founded to “educate the
public about the American system of free enterprise,”
employed no staff, and incurred approximately
$48,000 in expenses categorized as “professional
services.”110

In addition to serving as a columnist on
FoxNews.com, Milloy is also a contributor to Tech
Central Station and an adjunct scholar at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, both funded
by ExxonMobil.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]408321[/snapback]</div>

How does work in improving CO2 standards result in human suffering? Or has anything to do with AIDS?

 

scientists who are primarily interested in money don't go into academia :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 19 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]408373[/snapback]</div>

how unlimited are your resources? how much will it cost to lower co2 production? how much will your carbon taxes cost? how many jobs will be lost?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]408324[/snapback]</div>

Well said!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 19 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]408348[/snapback]</div>

Ph balance............ CO2 is indeed harmful in high concentrations. This is why I think everyone who dismisses global warming as only a political power grab is missing the bigger points. Ecosystem health. The terrorists we fight now are a temporary construct. Ruined ecosystems and loss of biodiversity are long term.

 

Look at the Vostok graph (from Wikipedia) when CO2 and temperature are overlaid upon each other. Doesn't it appear that temperature is the driver for CO2 and not the other way around? Temperature changes almost always look to be leading CO2 changes. The time scale is huge - 10s of thousands of years - so where does a 10 year data point show up? How about a 100 year one? The answer is, they don't. Instantaneous measurements can be blown out way out of proportion when working with this time scale.

Questions about the data abound. Recorded history is thousands of years old, but how does that get extrapolated to a global temperature at a specific time? How were the temperature measurements before recorded history determined? What's the margin of error (+/- on the year) in determining the historical time? Was the same global temperature-determining method used on all of the sample data?

CO2 from ice core samples is something that's measurable ... yay! Now, how are the samples dated precisely? Is it a measurement of the depth where the ice core was gathered? How do they know precisely what year the ice was created? Again, what's the margin of error? How much accuracy is there in extrapolating the data used to fuel the man made doom-and-gloom GW argument?

The answers to these questions should help validate the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Again, the data is used by many to demonstrate the trend that increased CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. The strength of this data must be unshakable if it's to be used to change the way the world does business.