Global Warming - The New Socialism

[Kyuuketsuki]

I know what you said Just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't just trying to start a fight.

OK though I stress once again I was referring to some pro-GW groups as w**kers (OK I think the deniers are generally CT nuts or have an agenda too but it's an imperfect world).

That's the thing, it should have been big news, but we don't hear about it. As far as I know it's true ...

And unfortunately that comment tends to put you with the CT nuts because there is no two ways about it ... if this genuinely was true it WOULD be big news, HUGE!!!!! Think about it man.

... if you follow this link, there'll be an article and an image of the petition they signed. Here is the link - http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs...niers.aspx

I'd already seen that page and pretty much dismissed it because I couldn't verify it as reputable (I could be wrong but I'm just saying I couldn't) but what's really interesting is a comment made by someone further down by someone called Lonnie Anderson, "This is the same fake petition that has been circulating the internet for years." (she supplies a link) ... she gets panned for claiming this but I'm not so sure. As I've already said the complete lack of anything published in reputable journals or mainstream media to my mind pretty relegates this claim to the loony bin.

Just for the record, I used to believe it all too. I thought it was undeniable. Then I started finding not just one site or book, but many refuting global warming. And instead of trying to avoid going into the science, they went straight to the science to make their point. However, I'm happy to be wrong.

Interestingly I looked up Freeman Dyson on Wiki (not the best reference I know but a good starting point) and it says that he broadly speaking accepts global warming although he has issues with the current models (fair enough). I also checked the names of several scientists (PhD's only ... I presume you were aware that only 9000 of the claimed signees had PhD's?) and they weren't known to Wiki ... now maybe I just haven't been thorough enough but I really (and I mean really really really) smell a rat here.

This petition, as far as I can tell, is complete and utter bollocks and that will remain my stance until someone actually provides a shred of real evidence (you know a publication in a reputable journal, some kind of reaction for the mainstream media, that kind of thing) .. as I said in the first instance the general scientific consensus appears to be the global warming is real and it is largely caused by human pollution and this petition appears to be nothing more than a fake.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Not trying to be funny but, whilst there are those who are w**kers about it (adopting it almost like a religion), there is pretty much scientific consensus that global warming is occurring.

Kyu

Of course there is. Science is objective and has no agenda. BUT neither is true of scientists overall.

In the Weekend Australian (Sat March 14) several Japanese scientists have concluded independently that the human cause of global warming has not been established.That another 10-20 years of study is needed to properly reach a conclusion. They observed that "without anyone noticing,hypothesis has replaced truth".


I accept global warming as fact. I don't know for fact what has caused it.My ignorant layman''s conclusion is that it's likely that humans have at least contributed .However,I really don't care what has caused it. I DO care about doing what we can to prepare for it. I DO think pollution is bad,if only on health grounds,and that much of it can probably be removed.

I also believe that world oil production has probably already peaked.The demand for oil is increasing at an exponential rate.Supply is not. If realistic energy alternatives are not developed over the next couple of decades the oil shortages WILL result in massive wars.Iraq and Afghanistan are just rehearsals.

Ironically,a world depression may help oil last a little longer.

[leo-rcc]

My view is about the same as Padriac on this. I also feel that more research has to go to alternative fuel solutions. Hydrogen is promising since we have that in abundance though in bound form. But the biggest problem so far is finding a viable way of producing it and storing it.

It's currently generated mostly via steam reforming of natural gas or coal gasification. ( http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/index.html ) You may notice that both of these require fossil fuels.

You could also crack hydrogen out of water via electrolysis, i.e., running electrical current through an electrolyte-water solution. The electricity we could use to do this today is mostly (70%) generated by burning fossil fuels. Right now for every Kw of Hydrogen power we consume 2.2Kw in production.

So at the moment we use more power to produce hydrogen power.

Storage is also a problem since hydrogen has the nasty habit of leaking through everything. There is some work in progress with nanotubes that are promising.

Windpower is too erratic, our windmills have an efficiency of 15% at best, and either they produce too much, or not enough, and there is no viable way of storing that energy for a rainy day.

Solar power is also very nice, but the return of investment is still way too long. Even subsidized it will take me 10 years to get my investment of my solar panels back, provided they don't fail. The panels themselves are not made environmentally friendly either.

We need more research in all possible avenues, and improve efficiency wherever possible and make the production process less pollutant.

[athoughtfulman]

as I said in the first instance the general scientific consensus appears to be the global warming is real and it is largely caused by human pollution and this petition appears to be nothing more than a fake.

Ok, I had a look into it and it seems you're right. We'll leave that 'petition' alone then unless evidence shows it to be real.

Just a few points I think it's important to mention:

- Science isn't about consensus and it never was. If it were, it never would have gone anywhere. Every time a scientist proposes a new theory, the general consensus is usually that they are wrong. For example, take Einstein. He wrote four papers in 1905 that history has come to call the 'Annus Mirabilis Papers'. Today they are recognised as a massive achievement and hence 1905 is known as Einstein's golden year. At the time, they were not noticed by most physicists as being important, and many physicists rejected them outright. The consensus was against him. However, cience (the observable facts) was on his side, as history has shown. So whatever the consensus is on global warming, it should not affect the science.

- Also, science is based on observable facts. However, global warming is based on computer models. Now whether you believe the data they input is correct or not, or that they are using their agenda to build the computer models, the fact remains that a computer model is not an observable fact, it is just a computer model.

With that in mind, I don't find much of a case for human-induced climate change.

However, like everyone has mentioned, we need to be responsible with the way we use fossil fuels, and how much pollution we put into the atmosphere. This should be a priority regardless of the state of the climate.

Suppose for a moment that the earth wasn't warming at all. What if mainstream society was wrong, and the earth is about to get colder? Yet, because of the widespread belief that the earth was warming, we are taking the opposite measures that we should to avoid catastrophe. Some believe that the new restrictions placed on business and trade due to climate change are killing the economy and are for a large part responsible for the current financial situation. If the world is cooling, we're on our way to destroying the world's economy while being completely ill prepared for what was actually about to happen.

The situation would be much more dire than that of a warming earth, in which life flourishes. All of a sudden, millions of acres of farmland is available closer to the poles due to warming, resulting in more food, less poverty and a larger, overall wellbeing of the world.

This is why I don't believe in global warming because the media tells me it is. Governments are handing out grants to numerous scientific organisations arguing for global warming, hence they have more funding to send their message to the public.

I know I'm in a minority. I'm just trying to figure out what's actually science, and what's actually political agenda.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Leo

Umm;I didn't say I agree with the Japanese. I really do not know for a fact what is causing global warming. Virtually all the information I have is from the media. Not having read any scientific reports arguing human causation,and lacking the science to interpret most, I'm in no position to reach a really informed conclusion .

@thoughtful

For all practical purposes science does work on consensus.Whether it's germ theory, Newtonian physics, or the laws of thermodynamics.It's the consensus which is taught in schools and universities.


All disciplines have a dominating power paradigm,this is especially apparent in science,where change tends to be revolutionary rather than revolutionary.Vested interests always fight to maintain the status quo on many levels. This situation has changed a bit since the church lost legal power.IE dissenting thinkers are no longer usually killed. However they may still be ridiculed and suffer other consequences.

That hundreds of scientists claim the debate on climate change has ended does not make it so.Nor does mass agreement infer truth. I accept the view of the apparent majority,as it seems reasonable,and because it's in my best interest.IE a kind of Pascal's Wager; I think there's more to lose if I disagree and am wrong.---Plus I'm pretty underwhelmed by the opposition.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thoughtful,

Good man (to concede the point you did) ... not saying I'm right but I do think it important to be able to concede points (theists seem to have great difficulty with that, mind you so do some atheists).

Yes I'm aware of what science is but it does pretty much work by consensus.

I also agree with Padriac ... I concede I may have over-emphasised the human contribution aspect though personally I think we are have a huge effect (see below).

Overall though I think it's worth bearing in mind one thing (which is where I see the religious pro Gw'ers come in, hollering about how we are killing the planet) ... we aren't killing the planet, we are killing some of the species on it and most notably we are potentially going to kill ourselves ... the planet will do just fine without us and in a few million years will probably evolve another species to take our place. We'll just be a blip.

Kyu

[Darwinian]

Before I can fully accept the possibility of Man Made global warming there are a few inconvenient facts that first need to be cleared up..

The main two that spring to mind are these..

Firstly, as I understand it, Humanity is responsible for emitting about 6 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

This sounds like a huge amount but when you consider that normal volcanic activity is responsible for approx 150 gigatonnes then it seems that we have a very long way to go to even come close to matching nature.

Secondly, the fact that the records for the Greenland ice sheet over the past hundred thousand years or so consistently show that it is always the temperature that rises first and then some time later, sometimes years, the CO2 starts to rise as well..

I would have though then that if CO2 was responsible for global warming it should be the other way around.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It isn't just the CO2 emissions though is it ... it's a whole range of things we've been doing like clearing jungles and sh** like that so the planet can't cope as well with the amount of pollutants.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

@Leo
Umm;I didn't say I agree with the Japanese.

Neither did I. So why bring that up?

I really do not know for a fact what is causing global warming.

None of us do. If we did there wouldn't be a scientific debate about it. However all the data of all the stations worldwide do measure an average increase in temperature and more radical weather changes that go along with it. The debate is more about the question if GCC is man made or one of those warmer periods the Earth has had in the past or if there is another factor involved.

[athoughtfulman]

Before I can fully accept the possibility of Man Made global warming there are a few inconvenient facts that first need to be cleared up..

The main two that spring to mind are these..

Firstly, as I understand it, Humanity is responsible for emitting about 6 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

This sounds like a huge amount but when you consider that normal volcanic activity is responsible for approx 150 gigatonnes then it seems that we have a very long way to go to even come close to matching nature.

Secondly, the fact that the records for the Greenland ice sheet over the past hundred thousand years or so consistently show that it is always the temperature that rises first and then some time later, sometimes years, the CO2 starts to rise as well..

I would have though then that if CO2 was responsible for global warming it should be the other way around.

Exactly. It is examples like these which are casting doubts on human induced global warming.

Kyu, I believe it's important too Our growth will halt as soon as we are unable to understand the other person's point of view. I understood yours, it made sense, hence I conceded

If we did there wouldn't be a scientific debate about it. However all the data of all the stations worldwide do measure an average increase in temperature and more radical weather changes that go along with it. The debate is more about the question if GCC is man made or one of those warmer periods the Earth has had in the past or if there is another factor involved.

But where was the scientific debate? I don't remember there ever being one. And Al Gore continues to refuse a debate with anyone who challenges him to one.

"He was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.
“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.
“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added."
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapita...s-critics/

"The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others."
Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0237.shtml

Seems like Al's afraid of something, don't you think? I mean, whether it's decided or not, if the facts were on his side, Al Gore would have absolutely nothing to worry about.

The Weblog 'Best Science Blog of 2008' has some interesting articles.

Also, I think I mentioned http://www.icecap.us/ earlier, but there it is again. If you want to know who's articles are on the site and if they're actually scientists, have a look at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

Or interested in public opinion?

- A poll from last summer found that the vast majority of Americans opposed Lieberman/Warner and would not be willing to pay higher prices for electricity or gasoline to combat global warming.
- Pew found in January that of 20 policy issues it asked people to place in order of importance, global warming ranked last.
- This week Gallup found a record-high 41 percent believe the media exaggerates the threat of global warming. “This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject,” the polling firm reported.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/03/13/...c-opinion/

Obviously, I can't post it all here. If you're interested, you'll find a wealth of knowledge available on the internet regarding the topic.