Global Warming no consenses

[dkerfoot]

It reminds me of the energy crisis of the 70's. "Science" proved beyond any doubt that we would run out of oil in the 90s. I even remember getting propaganda book covers from the electric company that dispelled the notion that it was another "wolf crisis."

Unfortunately, with so many scientists willing to accept the worst case, outlying data, it is hard to separate the smoke from the steam. Are things warming? Yes. Has man contributed? Yes. How much? Who knows? Is it a good or bad thing? Depends on who you ask.

I find the same issue with evolution. Without getting into religion, I'll just say that my faith doesn't depend on whether evolution is true or not and I have no doubt that species do adapt to their environments over time.

Unfortunately, if someone questions any part of the Darwinist Doctrine, they are instantly branded as a snake handling country bumpkin who should leave the thinking to the real scientists.

[WestofLongBeach]

gjat,

The worst that can happen is "a great deal of disruption"? Rising food prices caused by market demands for ethanol fuel is already causing India and African nations that import food to scale back on purchases. Starving to death because media hysteria fueled by political agendas and 'psuedo-science' is more than a great deal of disruption.

If you really believe that ethanol is THE solution, or even a very good temporary one, or if you believe that anyone else believes that, you haven't looked into it much. It isn't, it won't be, and the only people pushing it are the very large growers. My relatives in Iowa certainly don't want anything to do with growing for ethanol. They grow food.

I think you and I would agree that the problem, whether or not it exists, will cause people to seek solutions which will not be uniformly successful. And unsuccessful solutions do not mean that there is not a problem. People often seem to believe that.

In my view, the disruptions are truly caused by the problem, in that people tend to sort of "thrash around" until a real answer, or set of answers, is found. Solutions that do not work, or are too expensive, ought to be discarded.

Devices such as solar, tide, wave and such ought to be explored. Hydrogen won't work for vehicles, IMHO, due to its misbehavior any time it is in the presence of a spark and oxygen. Maybe for stationary apps. And only when it is economic to recover it.

The UN is already on record for lying about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. They justified their lies in order 'increase public attention and funding' to the problem. Now it's shown that the UN hid and misdirected data from effective programs in order to increase overall funding that ended up not being spent on the truely effective actions.

As a matter of fact, my daughter works on AIDS prevention in cooperation with the Nigerian military, and whatever you've heard, AIDS requires one of two things: we decide it's OK to depopulate Africa of almost all its adults (who carry the traditions and culture), leaving a huge population of vulnerable and naive children who can be recruited to almost any horror, or action has to be taken.

The boy who called 'wolf' is an old lesson that needs to be learned. He thought the worst that can happen is the people come out and are a little too attentive to a potential problem. Instead, the people got tired of the lies and exagerations, and failed to act when they were trueley needed.

We can't really discount what somebody says, just because somebody else who we consider unreliable, says the same thing.

And what I find missing in this whole discussion is the problem of supporting our enemies (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) at the expense of both ourselves, our nation and the environment.

[WestofLongBeach]

dkerfoot,

It reminds me of the energy crisis of the 70's. "Science" proved beyond any doubt that we would run out of oil in the 90s. I even remember getting propaganda book covers from the electric company that dispelled the notion that it was another "wolf crisis."

Scientists come forward with stuff like this based on current knowledge. And, in fact, if the amount of oil that is recoverable were the amount that was at that time known, they might well have been right. 70's technology isn't what we use now. It's easy to forget that and think that, since what they said hasn't stood the test of time and development, it was false. It was based on what we knew then, and we should always be ready to see that, and say, OK, you said what you said in good faith and based on sound data, but now we know better. Have a cookie.

That's important to note. And we should always view what scientists say with skepticism.

Unfortunately, with so many scientists willing to accept the worst case, outlying data, it is hard to separate the smoke from the steam. Are things warming? Yes. Has man contributed? Yes. How much? Who knows? Is it a good or bad thing? Depends on who you ask.

I find the same issue with evolution. Without getting into religion, I'll just say that my faith doesn't depend on whether evolution is true or not and I have no doubt that species do adapt to their environments over time.

Unfortunately, if someone questions any part of the Darwinist Doctrine, they are instantly branded as a snake handling country bumpkin who should leave the thinking to the real scientists.

Well. I believe in God. That's a belief I carry and it isn't really supported by sufficient proof to make it a known fact, as far as I'm concerned. I just believe in Him.

I look at the evidence of evolution, and like you understand that animals have adapted for some billions of years. That's not a belief, as it's open to modification or, even, if some great big guy with a long flowing beard shows up and tells me I'm full of it, abandonment. I'm allergic to lightning bolts.

[Sam Conder]

I REALLY like our planet. I have just recently discovered some beautiful places that are quickly being destroyed at the hands of humans. I figure whatever I can do to be a "good steward" of this home that has been created for us is not a futile endeavor. If that means replacing incandescent bulbs with CF bulbs and trying to recycle more and choosing a low-emission fuel efficient vehicle, then what can that hurt?

[Slik Geek]

I REALLY like our planet. I have just recently discovered some beautiful places that are quickly being destroyed at the hands of humans. I figure whatever I can do to be a "good steward" of this home that has been created for us is not a futile endeavor. If that means replacing incandescent bulbs with CF bulbs and trying to recycle more and choosing a low-emission fuel efficient vehicle, then what can that hurt?

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. My concern is that when science is perverted or incomplete, actions taken can cause harm.

For example, suppose quick action was taken during the 1960s and 1970s when the science community was concerned about global cooling?

Excerpts from "The Cooling World", page 64, Newsweek, April 28, 1975:

"There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production… The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now."

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hardpressed to keep up with it."

"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climactic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers might create problems far greater than those they solve."

"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with the climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Suppose the global cooling alarmists were successful and a spectular solution was implemented: spreading soot on the arctic ice cap, thereby increasing the local heating by the sun and melting the growing ice cap. Would that have been a good idea, in light of today's concern about the shrinking of the arctic ice cap?

Shouldn't we focus on areas where the science is better established? As you suggest, improve energy efficiency, re-use materials and reduce harmful emissions.

[WestofLongBeach]

Here's some more lack of clarity, to illustrate our predicament as laymen trying to sort out what "they" are up to.

From lower in the Newsweek article quoted above:

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

And, from a 1975 NAS article:

"…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).

So people were saying, even then, that the problem was that in the 70's we were just beginning to assemble complete data sets and predictions based on short-term data were very, very suspect.

Now, we know more.

Some reading this thread don't believe we know enough. Fair enough. It bears watching, though. And we must all remember the consequences of being wrong. Precaution seems like a real PITA when you're not sure, but that's why it's called precaution. You take measures based on the fact nobody knows the future, and on your best assessment of what is to come.

Just leave ideologues like Senator Inhofe out of it. He won't help. My view? You don't hold your kid out over a precipice, not because you're so clumsy you might drop him, but because any chance of what might happen is too awful to contemplate. It's the same with warming. If there's any chance it could come, what is to be lost by cutting off our dependence on Saudi oil, for instance?

[germdoc]

I'm going to step into the fray here. Just a couple of random observations here:

The world is getting warmer. There is no dispute about this. Glaciers are disappearing. It's observable, measurable and incontrovertible. Now whether this is a part of the "natural cycle" of temperature variation or due mainly to man-made factors is the important question.

There is general consensus among scientists that human factors are pivotal and are increasing in importance. There may be a few outliers among scientists; that's no reason to crucify them, but let's be clear that there's a broad consensus. It's a mistake to highlight uncertainties regarding the data and the opinions of the outliers to the point that you throw out the larger idea. There are ALWAYS naysayers and contrarians in the scientific community. Sometimes they are right, but the odds are generally against them.

(Now some of you may wish to point out that Galileo and Darwin and Einstein went against accepted dogma. That's true--they used the scientific method and had the facts on their side.)

We WILL run out of oil, the question is when. In the meantime we have incredible problems caused by our dependence on this expensive commodity. (See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/o...ml?ref=opinion) Maybe when gas is up to $4 a gallon and there is yet another war in the Middle East we'll realize there's a problem?

IMO it's foolish to think we can do the things we do--burn hydrocarbons, develop forested areas, etc., and not have an impact on our planet. Like Sam said, why not work toward reducing our impact right now? In retrospect, over the last 40 years did it hurt us to recycle, clean power plant emissions, improve gas mileage requirements, start using fluorescent instead of incandescent bulbs, etc.? We have all benefitted, including the companies that were regulated! New businesses have sprung up to handle environmental concerns, employing even more people.

What happened to the American "can-do" spirit? The risks of putting our head in the sand on this one are much greater than starting to deal with the problem.

[JR]

What happened to the American "can-do" spirit? The risks of putting our head in the sand on this one are much greater than starting to deal with the problem.

I agree entirely, Jeff.

We should want to release ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. We should want it badly.

We should want to rid ourselves of toxic emissions, even if they can't be proven to cause global warming. We deserve it, and so do future generations.

We should embrace the concept of a completely new power generation, distribution, and usage scheme. Petro-fuel has the benefit of an infrastructure that enables personal mobility. We should be able to have that mobility without polluting the air we breathe and the ground where we walk.

There are two main technologies vying for displacement of internal combustion engines: batteries and fuel cells. Each of them could be viable, IMO. But either of them would require major changes to our infrastructure, particulay in power generation and distribution.

I'm not a power-generation engineer, but with over 100 years of experience, it would seem likely we could overcome the technical barriers. It would take the vision and will of our leaders to accomplish it. We should want it to happen.

JR

[Ed62]

The risks of putting our head in the sand on this one are much greater than starting to deal with the problem.

I've never agreed with you more. While I have no idea how much of an impact we have on global warming, I think we need to seriously consider making changes that can't hurt us, and can only help.

Ed

[affyx]

GW is the religion of the left

What's interesting to me is that suggesting that GW is either a natural occurance or not man-made is treated as blasphemic and you are suddenly no longer worth listening to. I think the Penn and Teller video is perfect, and whenever I hear a GW zealot now I ask myself first what the character flaw is, then second whether they are spouting the party line or are really providing useful info!

The simple fact is that the developed nations make up an oil dependent world, and will continue to be for some time. I think we should look for alternatives, but not ones that use more energy than they produce (corn into ethanol) or bring more mercury into the house (flourescents); and I think punishing the USA while letting other nations like China pollute more and more (Kyoto) is just stupid and is more about punishing (read: taxing) success than helping the earth.

I'm all for finding new energy sources, internal combustion engines are exceptionally inefficient, I think wind and tides and solar have a long way to go and can provide huge amounts of power, and I look forward to entreprenuers and the free market exploiting those. But not for the sake of global warming, instead for the sake of getting us out of the back pocket of terrorist nations, and giving us power independence.

In the mean time I'm stocking up on incandescent bulbs! :-)

Here are some interesting links:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...ore-errors.pdf

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...tml.guest.html

[gjat]

I'm going to step into the fray here. Just a couple of random observations here:

The world is getting warmer. There is no dispute about this. Glaciers are disappearing. It's observable, measurable and incontrovertible. Now whether this is a part of the "natural cycle" of temperature variation or due mainly to man-made factors is the important question.

There is general consensus among scientists that human factors are pivotal and are increasing in importance. There may be a few outliers among scientists; that's no reason to crucify them, but let's be clear that there's a broad consensus. It's a mistake to highlight uncertainties regarding the data and the opinions of the outliers to the point that you throw out the larger idea. There are ALWAYS naysayers and contrarians in the scientific community. Sometimes they are right, but the odds are generally against them.

(Now some of you may wish to point out that Galileo and Darwin and Einstein went against accepted dogma. That's true--they used the scientific method and had the facts on their side.)

We WILL run out of oil, the question is when. In the meantime we have incredible problems caused by our dependence on this expensive commodity. (See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/o...ml?ref=opinion) Maybe when gas is up to $4 a gallon and there is yet another war in the Middle East we'll realize there's a problem?

IMO it's foolish to think we can do the things we do--burn hydrocarbons, develop forested areas, etc., and not have an impact on our planet. Like Sam said, why not work toward reducing our impact right now? In retrospect, over the last 40 years did it hurt us to recycle, clean power plant emissions, improve gas mileage requirements, start using fluorescent instead of incandescent bulbs, etc.? We have all benefitted, including the companies that were regulated! New businesses have sprung up to handle environmental concerns, employing even more people.

What happened to the American "can-do" spirit? The risks of putting our head in the sand on this one are much greater than starting to deal with the problem.

This will be my last post on the subject, things are getting to political or differences are considered too extreme.

The point I was making was that the effects of what man is doing has been demonstrated to be inconclusive either way. People of good intent has said, 'What does it hurt if we do X or Y?'. None of us are monsters, or complete idiots. For instance, given the examples above, there are some negatives with some of them.
In retrospect, over the last 40 years did it hurt us to recycle,
Negative to recycling: Other options was minimal packaging or bio-degradable packaging. These were abandoned for the more 'popular' recycling. Why does a flashlight need to be packaged in an indestructable, non-biodegradable, fossil fuel plastic bubble pack that won't ever see a re-cycle plant? What about all the water (a sensitive issue in Florida) that's used by homeowners to rinse out plastic bottle and aluminum cans?
clean power plant emissions, Negative: People felt that coal and oil power were now great, and the US has lagged behind developing safe, efficient nuclear plants and developing safe and efficient methods to handle nuclear waste. GE has spent the last 5 years in France, learning from them. That's how far beind we are!
improve gas mileage requirements,: The US has sacrificed good mass transit systems in everything other than large urban cities, justified by better gas mileage.

start using fluorescent instead of incandescent bulbs, etc.?: People would be shocked by the amount of mercury that is spilled into the environment during the manufacture and disposal of flouresent lamps. Did you know that flourescent lamps are hazardous waste and must be disposed of accordingly? Now we're putting them in all the homes where they will be disposed of one at a time as they burn out? Is putting all that mercury in landfills worth the 'energy savings'?

I never said that ethonal would replace gas, but it's a fact that it's gaining in popularity and companies are making money providing ethonal. Stop at a HESS gas station, and they proudly tout 10% ethonal in their fuel. It's a selling point. The unanticipated and ignored consequence is the sharp rise in corn costs that has effects on the global market that is making it difficult for food importing countries like India to provide affordable food to their populace.

The environment is a complex system with a complex problem that demands a complex solution. Believing simplistic rational that we're told because people have other agendas is not going to help us develop sustainable and reasonable long term solutions while we assauge our guilt in the short term. Media hype and hysteria is all about immediate gratification and short term solutions that probably aren't a long term benefit. You're simply not going to convince me that the $350 Carbon Tax I paid for each plane ticket from the US to the UK did diddly squat for the environment. Sure it makes some people feel better because they think they contributed 'something' to the environment, but I strongly suspect it only improved the airlines profit margin.

[Black wallnut]

This is a topic that will be with us for a very long time and I am sure it will be discussed to great length. My intent in starting it was mainly to provoke thought not to re-hash what has already been said. I found it refreshing that there actually was a news article pointing to those in the Science communtity that do not agree with what one usually hears in the media about GW. Although it probabaly is not possible I think it would be best to leave the politics out of it. Those on each side likely have political motives. Clearly it is not a case of those agreeing that GW is man caused wish to decrease our dependency on middle east oil; they want us to reduce our dependence on oil period, regardless of the source.

I tend to agree with Sam that being a good steward of our planet is the best path to take. I hope my great grand children have diverse forrests to walk through, clean rivers to wade as they cast a fly to a wild rising fish only to release it once caught. I also hope they get the thrill to experience a stampede of elk passing close to them in a wild place. I just do not agree that it will take a political solution to acheive this.

I ask that others that may still wish to reply to this topic leave the politics out of the discussion.