An Inconvenient Truth

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Actually, what I would like to see is both sides of the argument debated with facts and logic. I don't want to hear either side propagandizing. Then, I'd like to come to my own conclusions on what should be done about it.

It could be an issue. Then again, maybe not.

[bcnelson1 Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close bcnelson1]

Steve - thanks for posting that POV. I just finished up and Anthropology 101 class for my degree and we had quite the discussion about the Scientific Research Method and inherent bias.

While I do agree that mankind has had a great effect on Earth and it's natural resources, it was also pointed out that the Earth's own rotation and subsequent changes in it's positioning (due to rotation itself) in relation to the sun, are also major causes of change in global climate. (Man doesn't have much control over that at all) While the USA and much of the industrialized nations have made great progress in reducing harmful emissions, it is to the emerging and third world nations which are the greatest polluter/environmental challenge.

We all need to do our part to stop known problems, but sometimes, man has no control over Mother Nature. After all, Earth has already had 4 Ice Ages - and man wasn't around to blame for the first 3.

Barb
(Living in the land of $3.40/gal gas)

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Steve - thanks for posting that POV. I just finished up and Anthropology 101 class for my degree and we had quite the discussion about the Scientific Research Method and inherent bias.

While I do agree that mankind has had a great effect on Earth and it's natural resources, it was also pointed out that the Earth's own rotation and subsequent changes in it's positioning (due to rotation itself) in relation to the sun, are also major causes of change in global climate. (Man doesn't have much control over that at all) While the USA and much of the industrialized nations have made great progress in reducing harmful emissions, it is to the emerging and third world nations which are the greatest polluter/environmental challenge.

We all need to do our part to stop known problems, but sometimes, man has no control over Mother Nature. After all, Earth has already had 4 Ice Ages - and man wasn't around to blame for the first 3.

Barb
(Living in the land of $3.40/gal gas)

Yeah, but you know that the 4th ice age was George Bush's fault, didn't you? Haliburton played a big part in it even though they weren't around yet.

Acutally, when I was in high school, I remember one of my science teachers telling me that we were due for an ice age. If that's the case and global warming is indeed a fact, then maybe humans are doing a service to the earth by preventing it from freezing over too quickly.

What about all those cold war assertions that the mass detonation of nuclear weapons would result in a nuclear winter? Wasn't it the impact of an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Maybe there are natural disasters so big that anything we do to the environment pales in comparison.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

...
Acutally, when I was in high school, I remember one of my science teachers telling me that we were due for an ice age. If that's the case and global warming is indeed a fact, then maybe humans are doing a service to the earth by preventing it from freezing over too quickly.....

In the 1980's climatologic modelers, the most visible of whom was Stephen Schneider out of Colofado, were predicting global cooling and the onset of a new ice age. Stephen Schneider, of course, is among the most vocal spokespeople for global warming.

Pardon my cynicism.

[Beaglemom3 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beaglemom3]

When I was three, I had my photo taken with my Dad on the Portage Glacier in Alaska. We lived at Elmendorf AFB. That was 50 years ago. That glacier had been there for millions of years.
It is now just a trickle where we had our pix snapped.
For what it's worth...........
B

[zdxlc9p6 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close zdxlc9p6]

When I was younger, I didn't think much about the environment and what we humans are doing to destroy it. As a grandfather of seven, and hopefully I will live to see great-grand children, I worry about the life they may have and how much of the natural beauty, water, air, etc. they will enjoy. I am not an activist; just try to be more conscious of what I do personally.

[gophish Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close gophish]

That statement is a classic example of the propagandizing I referred to in my previous post.

It is simply not true that the scientific community is pretty solid on this, and it is emphatically not true that the ones who disagree about scientifc warming are paid to think otherwise.

What planet do you live on?
The real examples of propagandizing are what was contained in your post.
It is absolutely true that the scientific community is very solid on ther facts that Global Warming is a huge problem for the world.
And it is also true that many of the scientist who disagree with that are paid to come up with these conclusions by oil companies and unfortunately our government.
You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, if it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas you don't want to hear about it and discredit it.

[Bobo Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bobo]

That statement is a classic example of the propagandizing I referred to in my previous post.

It is simply not true that the scientific community is pretty solid on this, and it is emphatically not true that the ones who disagree about scientifc warming are paid to think otherwise..........

I would really like to see some facts to back up this statement. Just throwing it out there and saying it does not necessarily make it true. Yes there are all kinds of scientists that work for Exxon and other related interests that will say that global warming is not real. These are not objective people. Please give some studies, polls, etc to back up your statements. The BBC had a recent show highlighting the Bush Administration's efforts to censor and suppress our own government scientists warnings about global warming. Not good for the bottom line I guess. It's a pity that's the only thing that matters...

And what about this? ...... "Gore noted that in an exhaustive study of almost every piece of research published on global warming in scientific journals, a sample of 928 articles was examined. Every single one of those 928 studies concluded that global warming was happening and that human activity was substantially responsible for it. In other words, as Gore has noted, the scientific debate about global warming and its sources, is over.
In a parallel study of 636 news accounts of global warming, by contrast, 53% suggested that there was no scientific consensus on the question of global warming and its causes." Jonathan Weiler

Now who are we supposed to believe, the scientists, or the media???

This is one subject that there should not be sides drawn on. We are all in this together. If we ruin the earth, we all lose. Or our children do or their children... This is without a doubt the most pressing issue for the earth as a whole today. The big question for us is whether the United States, the richest nation on earth, keeps it's head in the sand on this issue or does it change course and try to find a better way to treat mother earth.

(I have not seen the movie yet - but I'm sure I will sometime this summer.)

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I guess we travel in different worlds.

I happen to be involved with enviromental management. I do air quality dispersion modeling. In that capacity I do see a bit of technical literature on the subject.

I don't see a consensus on the topic; I see a dominance, but it's far from a consensus. The people who outside of the consensus include a number of climatologists who are in university and academic positions.

I'm old enough to remember when there was a similar "consensus" in evolotutionary biology that changes in species occurred only gradually and could only be observed in geologic time. I remember when Dr. Alvarez at UC-Berkeley was pooh-poohed by the entire scientific establishment when he suggested that asteroids striking the earth caused mass species extinctions. I also remember when the earliest researchers who suggested that freon was destroying the ozone were as ostracized as are the current researchers who question global warming.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe global warming is occurring. I simply don't think that the evidence is quite as convincing as many people would have you believe it is.

*********

By the way, the argument about people's financial interest is a good example of an argumentum ad h ominem logical fallacy - the classic appeal to prejudice rather than reason. It's a lot easier to sling mud at other people and attack their character than to contend with their ideas. Politicians especially love it - in that arena it's calleed mudslinging - attack your oppoenents character and motives instead of dealing with the issues. Attorneys in court trials also use it often to sway juries.

BTW - regular readers here and at TUG are probably aware that ad hominem arguments are one of my pet peeves. (It's a residue from having religion and conservative politics stuffed down my throat as a child.) There's one regular poster here and at TUG who often uses [i]ad hominem[/b] arguments, and I call him out on it every time I see him doing it.

If you do insist on considering that argument, though, it's worth noting that many proponents of global warming also have a vested, financial interest in fanning public interest in the topic. If the public lost interest, the funding would go away, and many of those people would lose funding for their research.

*******

But to each his own. I don't intend to debate the subject. If you want to believe there's a consensus that's fine with me.

I know that I won't convince you otherwise, and you certainly aren't going to convince me.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

What planet do you live on?
The real examples of propagandizing are what was contained in your post.
It is absolutely true that the scientific community is very solid on ther facts that Global Warming is a huge problem for the world.
And it is also true that many of the scientist who disagree with that are paid to come up with these conclusions by oil companies and unfortunately our government.
You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, if it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas you don't want to hear about it and discredit it.

I think the scientific community would agree that category 4 and 5 hurricanes are a huge problem for Florida and the gulf coast regions of the US.

That doesn't mean a) that we can do anything about it or b) we should do anything to try to stop them from occurring.

It may be a better course of action to simply predict when they will happen, expect that they will happen and adjust how we live (e.g. better building codes, escape routes, etc) to accomodate them so that when they hit there is less damage and loss of life.

After all, before humans started inventing things, the earth was going through drastic changes without us. Asteroids, mega volcanoes, tectonic plates, earthquakes all have greater impacts to the earth than what we do.

[gophish Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close gophish]

I guess we travel in different worlds.

I know that I won't convince you otherwise, and you certainly aren't going to convince me.

We finally agree on something, Good place to stop. See ya next topic, next round. Take care.

[Bobo Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Bobo]

No need to fear, Bush is solving the "debate on global warming"

From a hard-hitting interview with People magazine, President George W. Bush said there is "a worthy debate" on whether global warming is caused by human activities.

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

Bush said the major question on climate change is whether it is caused by human activities.

It's very interesting to see who's on one side or the other of this "debate"!

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

From a hard-hitting interview with People magazine, President George W. Bush said there is "a worthy debate" on whether global warming is caused by human activities.

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

Bush said the major question on climate change is whether it is caused by human activities.

It's very interesting to see who's on one side or the other of this "debate"!

That's a typical political statement that sounds good but is totally lacking in logic.

If you believe that human activities are causing global warming due to increases in CO2, those solutions do nothing to address that problem since none of them significantly reduces CO2 generation, and some of them, in full lifecycle analysis, might increase CO2 emissions. (Though you can argue that the ethanol solution is marginally better since it reduces the conversion of geologically sequestered carbon to atmospheric CO2.)

If you don't believe that human activities are responsible for global warming, then those activities are a frivolous waste of money and effort.

If that is actually what Bush believes (i.e., it's not just a PR response he uses because it sounds good), then he profoundly misunderstands the issues involved.

[Oracle Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Oracle]

Let me start out by saying that “right now”, CO2 as a pollutant is a political argument against the United States, not a scientific consensus. The Kyoto Accords is a good example. If CO2 is bad, it should be bad everywhere not just Europe, Canada and the United States. The idea of Carbon Credits is just a way for underdeveloped countries to tax developed countries and has little effect on the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.

Hydrogen is the only clean technology for transportation. Right now, the major source of hydrogen is created from cracking petrochemicals with CO2 as a byproduct. The only "real" solution to CO2 is to use Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydro, Solar or Wind for energy generation. For the most part, Biotechnology for fuels is a push at best.

Hydro send the enviro's into fits of apoplexy, is capital intensive and is subject to changes in the environment. If you are using the reservoir for drinking water and you are in a drought, at some point you have to shut down the turbines to conserve drinking water. Additionally, it will not work where you cannot create a large hydraulic head in flat geography so you cannot build it any place you wish. Tidal forces might provide enough energy in costal areas, but the projects would be huge.

Geothermal also is limited to only certain areas of the country and the mineral content of the water presents problems with the machinery.

Wind is unsightly and unpredictable. There is also a concern of the number of birds killed by the blades. Even Teddy the bellicose is screaming NIMBY when there was a proposal to construct an offshore wind facility in an area he likes to sail.

In some areas of the Southwest, Solar is a viable solution with the large solar index, but I think the only way to do it is to pay for an easement on roofs of private homes but I don't know if a distributed infrastructure could be integrated into the existing power grid and you still need power plants because you can't run a normal house off solar only and for nighttime power needs.

That leaves Nuclear and again the word sends the environmentalists into apoplexy. Nuclear can produce hydrogen directly (very dangerous) or indirectly (electrolysis). It can be placed at will and is dense as far as power/acre of plant footprint. It would be my source of choice, but it has been so vilified that I don't know if the general public would accept it.

Right now, fossil fuels are very cheap compared to other energy sources in an open loop system.

[Bill4728 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Bill4728]

There will always be people who will say Global Warming is real and people who will say it isn't. Any presentation (movie, book, TV report) will start with a point of view and present the information in a way to support their point of view.

I just finished the Michael Creighton (Jurasic Park) new book call "State of Fear". The story is OK but the whole setting is the enviromental movement and the global warming debate.

The facts about GW through-out the book are real. Statements like "I think that the scientific community is pretty solid on believing that global warming is real and is in fact a problem except for those that get paid to think otherwise." are discussed over and over again. The problem is that both sides have a REAL reason to support their side and there is little or no independant research looking into this. Only one side bickering with the otherside, saying who is more biased.

READ THE BOOK! It is a fun and silly story, but the other info in the book is great.