Global Warming

What i find infuriating is the way you hardly ever engage with sourced information designed to facilitate and further debate. Instead you regularly make it nigh-on-impossible to discuss such material.

The bizarre defense-mechanism insults you leave liberally around the place don't make a dent matey. (Altho it's worth noting that apologising occasionally for oft-repeated slights - like your regular assertion that the majority of this forum is "out of touch with reality" - doesn't cut much ice)

Now - wanna stay on topic?

Tell me what is wrong with the version of global-warming-threats that i presented before - the ones that tally with the politico-speak of the Kyoto-signatories.

Try and at least address their contents, or provide counter-sources on the same topics eh? Address the 'titles'/contexts/assertions of each 'section' too, by all means. Just bring some facts to the table can't you? Or some constructive criticism.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

This is where I get stuck. Conceptually, it seems to add up, but there are exceptions. For one, certain areas of the country have had some of the coldest winters on record over the last decade.

More importantly, though, is that no one can seem to really give me a straight answer as to how much of this is because of us. You say you think there is "no question" that we're speeding it up...but what's that based on? Highlighting that things are, in fact, getting warmer, doesn't really tell us how much control we have over the process. Establishing that the climate is changing is only half the question; the other is establishing that we're the cause, or at least a significant part of it. I've asked people here and elsewhere for some sort of evidence that this is so, and no one's provided me with anything much yet, which leads me to believe that we really don't have all the answers yet. In my mind, that makes a lot of this talk premature.

Speaking on a purely gut level, the idea that we can so easily and dramatically (and irreversibly) change the environment of an entire planet strikes me as a bit grandiose. I'm open-minded, but initially skeptical of the idea that the planet is so incredibly fragile; I'm told the world is millions of years old...and now we're about to render it completely inhabitable for the first time in recorded history? Really?


Hype? You mean the numerous reports over decades from both the previous administration and several foreign intelligence agencies that said the same, as well as the USE of such weapons against neighboring countries? Yeah, I dunno how anyone bought into that.


You're misunderstanding me. At no point did I even suggest that all environmentalists (or even most) believe what they do simply so they have a reason to exist. If you'll read my post again, you'll see that I was responding to Gol's question; namely, why WOULD someone -- anyone -- hype such a threat? I provided an answer as to what someone might stand to gain.

Unless you think I have some sort of history of saying completely unreasonable, nonsensical things, I don't think it'd be out of line to assume that if I ever appear to, there's probably a miscommunication taking place. I think I generally make myself pretty clear, but when I don't, it'd probably save us both a lot of typing if you did not choose to argue with the most negative interpretation of what I've said.


I find it very difficult to believe that you actually think the situation is so cartoonish and simple.

Some people are genuinely skeptical, and plenty of those in the energy industry understand all too well that their obligation to the environment and their obligation to employees and shareholders overlap in many areas. Look at BP. From the top of their home page:

Good businessmen think long-term, and long-term preventing climate change, if it really is the threat that some claim, is in their interest as much as ours.

As for the claim that they don't get media coverage: I don't know what's given you that idea, but I hear about it all the time here. It's in the news on a regular basis.


Environmentalists are not the "little" guy you're describing. The Democratic Party harps on about climate changes quite a bit, and they're backed by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is not the dominant issue in American politics, but it's got plenty of wealthy proponents.

I suggest we dispense with the generalizations: people who tone down the threats against the environment do so for a variety of reasons; some of them are selfish, some are apathetic, and some are genuinely skeptical. And some environmentalists are genuine, and some are just looking for a cause, and I imagine others simply have an inherent dislike of large companies.

No cause is so pure as to be above bandwagon-jumping and opportunists. They'll be found in the environmental movement just as they will in any other movement, and I don't think anyone here is in a position to generalize about the motives of them, or those who remain skeptical of the repeated claims that the sky is about to fall.

I'm heading out soon and should be away most of the weekend, but I'll be checking back Monday. I look forward to it.

Sure, it's been really cold here too. But you're talking about top and bottom records - I'm talking about the average temperature over the whole year. It is a fact - which I also mentioned in my initial post - that the permafrost here in Sweden is melting.

I thought I did give you a straight answer. I could ask my best friend, a chemist a few months from a Ph.D. and specializing in developing new and more efficient methods to measure poison in watercourses (or something like that - it's all pretty complex), to lay it out for you in precise and chemical/biological terms. But he's not here right now.... and I don't know how to explain it better than I did in the previous post. But I can't understand how you can say that I haven't offered you an explanation to why the use of all these substances effect the environment in a bad way.

Anyway... The Industrial Age very young. How come the most rapid changes in the climate have occurred now? And knowing what substances that are being used in the Industrial countries, and knowing the efffects from using them, thoroughly calculated in chemistry labs ever since chemistry labs were invented and these substances were discovered - how can you not believe those scientists when they say that what goes for a small closed system goes for a larger closed system? The Earth is a closed system! The pollutions don't leave the atmosphere! And, as I told you previously but that you seem to have missed, those pollutions prevent the air from leaving the atmosphere as well! Is it here the problem lies, that you don't believe me when I say that? I can't understand how you can say that I am not at least trying to offer you "evidence" or a valid explanation to why and how global warming is happening.

Well, the recorded history is not very long now, is it?

Anyway....

Yeah... Really... If you're counting man years, we are killing the Earth slowly... If you're counting "Milky Way Years", we are killing it in milliseconds...

It's striking me now... This is an issue similar to when we discussed abortion. I come from a country where all political party acknowledge global warming, support the Kyoto protocol and to various extent believe we have to do something to stop the killing of this planet. You come from a country with a president - who you support - not long ago refused to admit that global warming even existed. Now he admits it exists, but doesn't believe it's because of us.

I realize now that instead of discussing global warming and what can be done to stop it we're actually down to debating whether air pollution is a good or a bad thing. I don't think I can handle that discussion.

Well, that's not the point... Isn't it possible that the administration "hyped" all those reports to gain support for an invasion? I would call that a hype if anything. There were other reports claiming the total opposite that were not very "hyped" by the administration though... Reports that turned out to be closer to the truth.

...and that would be political existence. No, I don't think I misunderstood you.

I choose what I want to argue with and you choose what you want to argue with. I took offense by your remarks on how civil right movement activists "hype" "racial tensions".... but I let that go since it has nothing to do with global warming. I would say that was to choose not to argue with the most negative interpretation of what you said.

It's exactly as simple as that. Environmental activists and politicians work for a cause, corporations work for profit. They will not do anything in the longrun that will not earn them money. And that's why I added in my previous post that making them look bad, as Shell in particular did because of what they did in Africa among other things, is something they do not want to do - because that will lose them money. So when more and more people start to realize that polluting the nature perhaps isn't such a great idea, the big oil companies and car companies and so on will have to work on their image.

And Chris, if even BP are giving their customers advice on how to prevent global warming - how can you still claim that it's something that the human being can't affect?

That is true. You should see the excellent documentary The Corporation. There you will see a former Shell executive for instance who realized that the future lies in products that are nice to Nature. Unfortunately his kind is in minority.

Yeah, here too actually. But I don't have a clue who's the leader of the american Green party, and I'm pretty sure I'm sharing that non-knowledge with lots of americans. And why is that?

Well, sure... American politics are a lot about what the Democrats think or what the Republicans think. And if the Democrats think this, then you can be pretty sure that the Repbublicans think more or less that. But the Democrats are not a Green party... They are not an environmentalist party... They are simply more environmentalists than the Republicans.

Such as?

Like how?

Examples?

Oh yeah, so typically environmentalists to be what they are simply because they're looking for A Cause.

I can't see how environmentalists differ from other politicians or activists in that matter in any way.... You become an environmentalists because your life is empty, but you become a conservative or a liberal because reason and life experience have taught you which path to follow?



Well, I can't really argue with you there, but there's a totally logical explanation to why environmentalists don't fancy many of the large companies very much. I think you can guess the reason.

As long as we're talking about movements, I couldn't agree more. But I don't consider the corporate business world to be a movement, and thus the motives and goals are completely different, as I mentioned in my previous post. The motor of the environmental movement is their cause - to save Nature - the motor of the corporate businesses is largest possible profit.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Ok! Have fun.....

Conceptually, i can help you there . Certain regions are getting colder because of shifts in global climate patterns and because of specific geographical features (which vary cloud/moisture dispersal etc). There's also a very tricksy issue called 'Global Dimming', but maybe it's too early to bring that up .

As a global mean tho, the move is upward. Consistently...

That's because it's tricky to say 'how much'. But, you might be asking the wrong question...

The question to ask seems to be: Which theories explain the observed facts best? The answer is: the theories which include the input of human activity. Those that don't (which factor in natural-phenomenon and human-heat-generation alone) do not tally nearly so well with the observed climate changes over the last 100 years or so.

Still, the best you'll get out of the combined members of the IPCC is that recent changes are 'likely' to have been promoted by human activity (while distinct and distinguished groups like these guys suggest 'most likely'). That's the most certainty you'll get from climate scientists, and the continuing level of caution is a good sign, if you ask me.

Here's a helpful layman's-guide to the solid and speculative connections between human activity and climate change:Climate change: Menace or myth?

The concept centers on the idea that we are merely supplementing a massive ongoing process, but one which is in a long, delicately-balanced, transition period. The two core contentions are:

(a) That we are adding to the 'background' of global-gasses by releasing them from fossil fuels (and other sources) far faster than they would have otherwise 'escaped'.

(b) That tipping points exist - which, once prompted by a certain level of heat, cause other 'dormant' sources of 'heating' to kick in or speed up (such as methane trapped in the permafrost being released, etc].

Does that seem so very far-fetched?

Considering that some of the tipping-points are reasonably well modelled (from land features like permafrost, to ocean features like the Gulf Stream, to green-house gas concentrations in the atmosphere etc) these concepts have a certain weight behind them.

The main problem is integrating them together to create a coherent predictive model. Huuuuge task. But given the strength of the current theories about observed changes - and given the huge potential contained within the tipping points - it becomes easier to conceive of our 'small but increasing' actions being capable of acting as a catalyst for a change that exists in potentia already [as the geological record clearly shows etc]

(a) Not necessarily uninhabitable at all - but far more 'uncomfortable' for many lifeforms, certainly. (It's very clear that we are in a particularly 'benign' stage right now). The climatic 'cross-over' period will most likely bring tumult as well, as land masses change their 'characteristics', causing mass migration, which will probably be exacerbated by disease (as water-sources become problematic etc).

(b) we are looking at a change approaching that hasn't occured for the last 500,000 years. Civilisations have been around for 10,000. We've never faced anything like this shift before.

Actually, my specific question for Django was why would any politician exagerrate the climate science. Slightly different slant to it .

But i've got a slightly different 'discussion' [] going on with him - about the timeframe on which dangerous change might occur.

Anyways, hope some of that makes the human-assisted-climate-change view a bit more coherent to you

What I find personally very, very tiresome is the absurd allegations you continue to make about me, none of which have any basis in reality, IMO. You are venting, but you are also very irritating.

What? Me? You are out of touch with reality, because your remarks have no basis in fact. They are totally arbitrary.

I am staying on topic--you're the one who is straying off topic with your whining insults directed at me. Not that they mean anything more to me than the whining of some rabid dog! (Please don't take that personally). So when you have decided to stop crying for Mommy, feel free to begin making some relevant points to the discussion.

Merely that it is political speak. It is a whole lot of exaggerated marketing about a speculative claim that the earth is on a warming trend owing to excessive greenhouse gas emissions by human beings. You have admitted that you are extrapolating, which is exactly the problem. How you can extrapolate a trend from a few points on the graph related to recent years is beyond me. For all we know, the temperature might drop in a couple of years, and all your speculations would be meaningless. The fact is that you have some limited observations--some 20 years or so of data (am I right)--from which you have extrapolated (assuming that this trend continues for the reasons that you have cited) a catastrophe in the ensuing decades. 20 years of data as a basis for charting geological trends is hardly reliable--it's literally like extrapolating the temperature changes in the course of a week from charting the temperature changes in 1 second of 1 day. I don't think it has much scientific credibility. That's all just speculation--you have no hard scientific data of any real value, I'm sorry to say. All you have is alarmist journalism, mostly from a media source that obviously has an agenda (based on the title and content)--which makes its content questionable.

The news articles that you have cited mostly report on the speculative claims of supposed scientific authorities. There is no scientific data at all. Just a bunch of scientists making speculative claims. One article claims that 95% of scientific authorities speculate that global warming is a threat to the world. While that sounds authoritative, let's keep in mind that only a few centuries ago, 95% of existing scientific authorities were crucifying Galileo for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun! So the speculative claims of a number of scientists doesn't mean much. Where is the hard evidence? You have none.

And yet, after the invasion of Iraq, not a single WMD... What happened to them, I wonder! Evaporation due to global warming, perhaps? I bet I can cite any number of scientific "authorities" who might make such a claim...

Why? Because it would benefit an environment-friendly political agenda, that's why. I'm not trying to make value judgments here--I actually support an environment-friendly agenda. However, I question the use of political hype in any context.

Let me clarify exactly what I said, in a (perhaps vain) attempt to undermine the continuing distortion and/or exaggeration of my words. What I said was that the so-called threat posed by "global warming" appears, in my humble estimation, to be exaggerated and hyped up by politicians and media sources subscribing to an environmental-friendly political agenda, mainly because it serves admirably as a marketing strategy for that agenda. I.e. because scare tactics are often used as a marketing strategy, and the exaggerated threat of global warming works very well as a scare tactic. I made an analogy with scare tactics used by the Bush White House to market the invasion of Iraq--the exaggerated threat supposedly posed by WMDs in Iraq, a threat that ultimately proved to have no basis in reality and was based on limited, questionable evidence of little or no credibility. In fact, one of the corrollaries of this incident was a political scandal that is still currently besieging the White House (one of many), namely the whole CIA-gate issue and the leaking of the name of a former CIA agent.

And the truth is that, if you had been paying any attention at all to anything I have said, I never said that. I said, and here I am repeating myself for the nth time (mainly because you appear to be deaf to my words): I believe that scare tactics used in political hype is basically a marketing strategy for a political agenda. It's really that simple--politicians do it all the time--they turn issues into scary-sounding potential catastrophes to win public attention for political reasons.


As I have said repeatedly, I don't believe there is an "ulterior" motive. It's basically about politics and marketing--about marketing your politics, your political agenda. In the case of global warming, the agenda is pretty obviously environmental protection.

It is the politicians and politically motivated media interests entirely. The media and politicians quote the science and the scientists, but where do we hear from the scientists themselves? When we do hear from them, what we hear is scarcely cause for immediate alarm.

There is no science to speak of--only exaggerated speculation based on very limited data (from a statistical standpoint). Hardly enough to warrant the conclusions that are being tossed at us (IMHO). Again, I think an analogy with the case for war made by the Bush White House is an excellent example--very limited questionable evidence is being inflated into what is being made to sound like a potentially catastrophic threat. That's what it looks like to me. The question ultimately is whether or not it is all doctored, contrived media hype--whether or not there is any hard, factual scientific evidence behind all the exaggerated claims. I would argue that if there is any at all, it is meager--virtually non-existent. Definitely not enough to warrant all the scare-mongering and hype surrounding this issue.

Golgot is far more intellectually equipped than me when it comes to this so maybe you shouldn't read my posts. At all.

I wanted to talk about fossil fuels but I couldn't remember what the bloody things were called! To me it is frightening that those fossil fuels are the result of a process that's been running for thousands of years - and we have used up so much of it in about a hundred years that we are beginning to talk about us running out of them. And at the same time the use of them creates pollutions. It can't be a good thing. But, hey, I drive a car too. But at least I take my bike to work and only use the car when I have to go longer distances. Or when snowing makes it dangerous to ride a bike.

So, what this comes down to is that you disagree with the SCIENCE. And yet you present no scientific counter-claims.

No, ive agreed that the science involves extrapolation. It also involves a wealth of observed facts and data. Show me one that doesn't.

So? Are you a climate scientist? No. Well then this isn't a valid objection is it.

So, yet again you would rather speculate than address scientific conclusions that you happen to dislike.

They're not my specualtions, they're the scientists observations and predictions.

No.

The observations consist of ice cores and geological samples (including some from the ocean's floor) which chart weather cycles and natural phenomenon as far back as 55 million years ago.

More recent records, from the last 100 years or so, are particularly replete because of the combination of those facts, plus increasingly sophisticated human records and the natural record in trees etc.

As you've clearly demonstrated, and as i've suspected for a long time - YOU DON'T KNOW THE SCIENCE. So you have no grounds for your arguments.

No, what i have is summaries of scientific investigations, presented in science publications for the layman, because these are the best tools we have for discussing the science, as laymen.

It's a hell of a lot more than you've brought to the table mate.

You are the one speculating, in comparison. They have the body of international work and their own studies to back them up. What do you have?

Well, if you've found a Galileo with robust theories that explain the observed data in a better way than the current climate models, bring 'em forward. I'd love to hear their arguments. (I've followed many climate-sceptics - and i've observed why the work of at least some of them has proved to be flawed. I'm sure others exist. I'd like to read about their work).

These aren't exactly the days of Galileo you see. Work can still be supressed, but in the high-profile 'climate' of GW debate, any and all objections go through thorough scientific analysis. There is still plenty of room for debate, and mistakes, but you aren't challenging the right things. You're attempting to dismiss the scientific conclusions of the almost the entire climate science community simply because you don't like what they've found.

But the fact-based conclusions and projections of the vast majority of the world's experts on a given field means a lot. Until you have a valid, science-based challenge to any of their particular claims, i suggest you shut up - because it is you, my dear Django, who has presented no hard evidence.

We cannot discuss the science data per se - we're laymen in this issue. But we can find reliable summaries of the work being pursued, and discuss the pros and cons involved.

I wish you'd get involved in that, rather than just hurling uninformed accusations around.

One final post before I head out of this sordid arena...

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but because of your sordid muck-raking and your attempts to get me banned from the forum--for no other reason, obviously, other than the fact that your ego can't handle the possibility that your "Global Warming" religion might be nothing more than a New Age fallacy--I have decided that it is not worth my time and trouble to continue posting on this forum.

Let me finally say this: if I wanted to argue with hysterical females, I'd be on a different website.

I came here for an intelligent discussion, and what I get instead is dogma, along with character assassination, hysteria and fanaticism.

[sarcasm]It's so nice to know that people like you can handle losing an argument so well![/sarcasm]

Good luck with your continued attempts to perpetuate your misguided religious doctrine, which is obviously based on myths and fairy tales because it lacks any hint of genuine scientific validity!

Once again, goodbye!

I can completely handle the idea of GW theory being wrong, dear boy. That's why i want to discuss it. That's why i urge you to provide facts to back up your claims.

Instead i find myself spending forever trying to extract any sort of justification from you for your stance. It's completely non-productive. All it achieves is that you fill the thread with your insubstantiated rhetoric, and the real and interesting debates get obscured.

Sure you can--which is why you resort to muck-raking tactics and start a thread urging the forum to ban me. That's how you handle losing an argument, by stabbing people in the back.

Face the facts, Golgot. You may believe that you are some kind of New Age Messiah proclaiming the dubious gospel of global warming.

The reality is that you are a backstabber and a sore loser.

You can't accept the fact that you have lost this argument, and to save face, you resorted to the underhanded strategy of character assassination. I believe, this is pretty characteristic of you.

That said, I am out of here. Feel free to rant and rave at my frank comments, as you probably will. This time, however, you will only be ranting at yourself.

Bye.

__________________

I just want to finally add that it is disturbing to me the lengths some people will go to defend a lie. Of course, it is perfectly consistent that these people defend lies with more lies--by discrediting their opponents with slander and defamation instead of defending their points with facts. If you don't have any facts on your side, your only defense is lies, and lying about your opponent by personally attacking their character is perfectly consistent with this general trend of behavior.

So, basically, as I have been saying all along, in my points about exaggeration and hype and distortion of the facts as a tool for cowards and liars, it looks like my points have realized themselves right before my eyes. But the point I want to make is that I am not, in any way, intimidated or scared by any of these slanderous lies. I have contacted Yoda urging him to remove these offensive posts about my character from his website, which he refuses to do. I have warned him that I will proceed with legal action against him, a warning he chooses to ignore, to his own detriment.

Anyway, we shall see. In the meantime, like I said below, lies don't scare me because the truth, the facts, are on my side. The cowards and liars who have shamelessly attacked my character don't have a single fact on their side to support any of their claims. That is the essence of the matter--hearsay means nothing when you have no facts to support your claims.

If you are not intimidated by "these slanderous lies" why would you want them removed and proceed with legal action.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Exactly why your arguments on this thread have held very little weight - coz you've preferred your own 'hearsay' to substantiated argument.

If you really want to keep banging on about all this why not do so on a more appropriate thread?

I like him... he's silly!

__________________

Are you even remotely insinuating that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was blown out of proportion?

__________________