Global Warming

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

When substance fails, quote lyrics!

THAT is also very FUNNY, to me.

I quote to you what is quoted to me by some artist that I mused in the first place and who then quoted me back to me... HA! Funny.

God works in mysterious ways

[Siggie]

Re: Global Warming

Exactly. What evidence do people have to 'prove' that earthquakes happen? By the way... Jesus rode a dinosaur to church--per SNL.

If this was supposed to be in reference to global warming issue, it just further proves that you have no clue whatsoever what we're talking about. You can't even understand a point of view other than your own?

For at least the 3 or 4th time. I am not saying that there has not been climate change. What I am saying is that there is not evidence to suggest that we are the cause. Read it a few times if you need to, but it's important to understand if we're going to discuss the issue.

Also, can't help but notice that you completely ignored my last post.

[Sip]

Re: Global Warming

I am not saying that there has not been climate change. What I am saying is that there is not evidence to suggest that we are the cause.

These two sentences pretty much sum up the essense of the entire Global Warming debate ... unfortunately that simple notion seems to escape sooooooooooo many people when one says there is no conclusive evidence that humans cause(d) global warming. They immediately go and dump a bunch of stuff showing how the Earth's climates are changing and correlate it with human activities. At the same time, some people aren't always careful about the phrasing of their thesis and even though they are meaning to say "humans probably didn't do it", they say "there is no evidence of Global Warming" which is probably not entirely accurate since we know in the recent times the Earth is in fact on a warming trend.

After all, when I fart and people leave the room, there may be a connection. But if I fart and watch the sun go down, can I still conclude the same thing?

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

I didn’t ignore your message at all, Siggie. A couple of things you said warrant more effort and time in my response than do other posts here. Your post had some interesting points (and is unlike posts that cite climate change ‘experts’ like Dennis Miller, Carlin, and extreme right websites. I also still intend to respond to many other issues you brought up earlier--some maybe even on a later thread). I do carefully read your messages.

I don’t know why you assumed the “Jesus rode a dinosaur to church” had something to do with anything you wrote, Siggie. I was kidding about a reference to something Anonymouse said to me awhile back about evolution. Earlier, I brought up extinction of species as analogous (and they are interlinked issues) to climate change.

A few people (many backed by industries that want free access to cut tropical forests) make claims like “extinction is natural.” The five major extinctions in history, like climate change, occurred at a RATE that is dramatically different than the current situation. The current extinction spasm is very much caused by direct actions of human beings (i.e., habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, ecosystem stress.) Diversity of life has been maintained through history because evolution kept up with extinction rates.

Similarly, the Earth has also had major climatic changes through history. A key difference between then and now, again, is the rate that these changes occurred. Earlier periods of change were slow enough that many species on Earth could adapt to new conditions and survive.

The danger of thinking that we're the cause of the climate change is that it leads to misdirected responses. Instead of the focus being on how to prepare for the consequences of the climate change, we're spending time and resources on trying to cut emissions which in all liklihood won't stop the change.

Ok. Let’s pretend that global warming isn’t caused by emissions (that still doesn’t mean it is not caused by humans, but anyway). Maybe the planet is self-regulating. How would the response about how to prepare for the consequences be any different? Actions to prepare for climate change (regardless of if it is ‘caused’ by humans or not) are also the same as those to prepare for the end of oil—which WILL happen. To attempt to slow climate change (based on recommendations of climate scientists, policy analysts and others) we would develop renewable (e.g., wind power) energy, conserve the remaining oil (with more efficient cars, appliances, and such), structure our food systems around local production and so on. We would want to dramatically change food systems to local-based and energy systems to renewable--before gas is gone… e.g., getting apples from New Zealand in the US in December is not rational from either way we look at the issue. For whatever way we think about this we would want to conserve energy whether the motivation is to ‘slow global warming’ or to ‘buy time’ to adapt to coming changes with peak oil, or to “prepare for consequences” of natural climate change. The motivation is somewhat irrelevant to informing what actions should be taken.

I found my paper copy of the article that I mentioned earlier. This is one of my all-time-favorite journal articles, so I’ll likely cite it again. It is certainly worth my time to type some in here. Plus Anonymouse will likely enjoy…
Allen, T., Tainter, J., et al. (2001) Dragnet Ecology—“Just the Facts, Ma’am”:The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 51:6.
“For instance, one cannot calibrate the way to ascertaining the exact degree to which human activity is responsible for global warming. First one needs to define “human activity,” then what one means by “responsible,” not to mention global “warming” scenarios that involve the triggering of a new ice age in Europe. And finally, if we may borrow from a recent president, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. All those decisions produce alternative answers, and each is necessarily value laden.” (Allen 476)
[emphasis added]


I thought this was neat, so I’m throwing it in here
Science and the Search for God

http://www.care2.com/channels/solutions/bms/1358

since we know in the recent times the Earth is in fact on a warming trend...

After all, when I fart and people leave the room, there may be a connection.

At least you fess up to your "methane release." Lots of people just claim the dog or cat did it. Over 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are added to the atmosphere by humans each year (that carbon was once held in trees and oil.) I think it is naive to think that has no effect on the atmosphere. I'll talk about the effects in the atmosphere of manmade CO2 emmissions increasing by over 5000% since the industrial revolution in a different message...

[Siggie]

Re: Global Warming

Over 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are added to the atmosphere by humans each year (that carbon was once held in trees and oil.) I think it is naive to think that has no effect on the atmosphere. I'll talk about the effects in the atmosphere of manmade CO2 emmissions increasing by over 5000% since the industrial revolution in a different message...

The junk science site that you quickly dismissed (assuming that I am remembering correctly that it came from there) to an article that cites research that has shown that the volume of the regular exchange of C02 between the atmosphere and the ocean is [absurdly large number] times larger than our C02 output.


Also, as far as preparations go... driving hybrids or exploring alternative energy sources (although I agree is worth pursuing) isn't going to help with things like Katrina and the damage it did that we could have maybe prepared better for.


And Sip - Global warming as it's most often defined includes in it's definition that it is an effect caused by humans. That is why the term isn't used and instead we (since i've done it too) use climate change instead. So, if it's defined that way, it isn't technically wrong to say there's no support for global warming. I avoided the term and making that particular statement to avoid having to get into this explanation.

[Sip]

Re: Global Warming

And Sip - Global warming as it's most often defined includes in it's definition that it is an effect caused by humans.

I see. Wasn't aware of that specific definition.

By the way, talking of hybrids, I found the following article today pretty interesting. Junk science or not, I think their criteria for evaluating energy costs is interesting. And I certainly don't think simply looking at fuel consumption numbers is a wise way to compare vehicle choices Also it seems to me a lot of greenies are advocating the use of electric vehicles (not hybrids) and looking down on everyone else that drives gasoline engines, claiming they are "cleaner". This, while the whole time we are burning massive amounts of coal to charge up their batteries.

Here's the article: Many vehicles have lower energy cost than hybrids

I guess that's why I drive a jeep

[Quarteria]

Re: Global Warming

AH! Good! I was hoping this thread would still be here. Rush was talking about this very topic on his show today. Top 10 Ways To Destroy The Earth. Click on the link at the bottom of the article to get the ten.

BUT, let me sum it up for some:
The good ol' days weren't always good
And tomorrow aint as bad as it seems -- Billy Joel

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I didn’t ignore your message at all, Siggie. A couple of things you said warrant more effort and time in my response than do other posts here. Your post had some interesting points (and is unlike posts that cite climate change ‘experts’ like Dennis Miller, Carlin, and extreme right websites. I also still intend to respond to many other issues you brought up earlier--some maybe even on a later thread). I do carefully read your messages.

I don’t know why you assumed the “Jesus rode a dinosaur to church” had something to do with anything you wrote, Siggie. I was kidding about a reference to something Anonymouse said to me awhile back about evolution. Earlier, I brought up extinction of species as analogous (and they are interlinked issues) to climate change.

A few people (many backed by industries that want free access to cut tropical forests) make claims like “extinction is natural.” The five major extinctions in history, like climate change, occurred at a RATE that is dramatically different than the current situation. The current extinction spasm is very much caused by direct actions of human beings (i.e., habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, ecosystem stress.) Diversity of life has been maintained through history because evolution kept up with extinction rates.

Similarly, the Earth has also had major climatic changes through history. A key difference between then and now, again, is the rate that these changes occurred. Earlier periods of change were slow enough that many species on Earth could adapt to new conditions and survive.



Ok. Let’s pretend that global warming isn’t caused by emissions (that still doesn’t mean it is not caused by humans, but anyway). Maybe the planet is self-regulating. How would the response about how to prepare for the consequences be any different? Actions to prepare for climate change (regardless of if it is ‘caused’ by humans or not) are also the same as those to prepare for the end of oil—which WILL happen. To attempt to slow climate change (based on recommendations of climate scientists, policy analysts and others) we would develop renewable (e.g., wind power) energy, conserve the remaining oil (with more efficient cars, appliances, and such), structure our food systems around local production and so on. We would want to dramatically change food systems to local-based and energy systems to renewable--before gas is gone… e.g., getting apples from New Zealand in the US in December is not rational from either way we look at the issue. For whatever way we think about this we would want to conserve energy whether the motivation is to ‘slow global warming’ or to ‘buy time’ to adapt to coming changes with peak oil, or to “prepare for consequences” of natural climate change. The motivation is somewhat irrelevant to informing what actions should be taken.

I found my paper copy of the article that I mentioned earlier. This is one of my all-time-favorite journal articles, so I’ll likely cite it again. It is certainly worth my time to type some in here. Plus Anonymouse will likely enjoy…
Allen, T., Tainter, J., et al. (2001) Dragnet Ecology—“Just the Facts, Ma’am”:The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 51:6.
“For instance, one cannot calibrate the way to ascertaining the exact degree to which human activity is responsible for global warming. First one needs to define “human activity,” then what one means by “responsible,” not to mention global “warming” scenarios that involve the triggering of a new ice age in Europe. And finally, if we may borrow from a recent president, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. All those decisions produce alternative answers, and each is necessarily value laden.” (Allen 476)
[emphasis added]


I thought this was neat, so I’m throwing it in here
Science and the Search for God

http://www.care2.com/channels/solutions/bms/1358

At least you fess up to your "methane release." Lots of people just claim the dog or cat did it. Over 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are added to the atmosphere by humans each year (that carbon was once held in trees and oil.) I think it is naive to think that has no effect on the atmosphere. I'll talk about the effects in the atmosphere of manmade CO2 emmissions increasing by over 5000% since the industrial revolution in a different message...

Plus you entirely ignored my piece by Bill Walker who showed that not too long ago, the global scare and fad was "global cooling" and now that has been replaced with global warming. Either way, the human variable is a moot point and inconclusive so the only thing you people will achieve with your silly regulations is drive more companies to outsource and then wonder why companies are outsourcing.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

Plus you entirely ignored my piece by Bill Walker who showed that not too long ago, the global scare and fad was "global cooling" and now that has been replaced with global warming. Either way, the human variable is a moot point and inconclusive so the only thing you people will achieve with your silly regulations is drive more companies to outsource and then wonder why companies are outsourcing.

No I didn't.

Plus Anonymouse will likely enjoy…
Dragnet Ecology—“Just the Facts, Ma’am”:The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. ...“For instance, one cannot calibrate the way to ascertaining the exact degree to which human activity is responsible for global warming. First one needs to define “human activity,” then what one means by “responsible,” not to mention global “warming” scenarios that involve the triggering of a new ice age in Europe. And finally, if we may borrow from a recent president, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. All those decisions produce alternative answers, and each is necessarily value laden.” (Allen 476)

PS: Debbie Davies "Made in the USA" (My jeans are made in China... I got the blues... oh, you can't take that job away) started the House of Blues show that started minute ago on MMM.

I haven't responded to some of the other things you've mentioned because I'm trying not to go too far off topic. So I'll let the music talk for now

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

But you have still ignored the point that once the fashion among environmentalists was global cooling, and essentially they gathered all the evidence to conform to that paradigm. Now it's the opposite.

And your obvious silence on the economic factor of the global warming red herring is also telling. Few if any of the environmentalists actually understand economics to see the fallacy of their position.