BS: Global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:16 PM

As usual, a Mudcat discussion is being distorted in an attempt to discredit people, when only the facts should be subject to to such scrutiny.

If you don't like those facts, unca Donald, present some information you do like. Baiting is a poor response at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:27 PM

Hey, PDQ.

Watch Gore's little talk. It's short.

Which of the facts he presents do you feel are wrong? The pictures of the reduced polar icecap?

Let's get specific here. Stop waving your arms and generalizing like a panic-stricken teenager.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:29 PM

"...many recognise oil as the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth."

Is that the strange theory put forth by mostly ONE guy that oil did NOT come from organic carbon? If so, 'many' certainly do NOT recognize any such thing!

"...testimony given must be assumed truthful until it is substantially impeached."

Ummm..sure...
You making any distinction here between 'truthful' and 'accurate'?

Sorry, pdq, but you are just strewing the landscape with vague assertions:

"fact: There has been absolutely no increase in atmospheric temperature since 1995. "

Well..take a look at these graphs from NASA

and this one

It is the case that the changes in global climate may actually cause some cooler temperatures and more snow, etc. in some areas...but glaciers ARE retreating, the Antarctic icecap is breaking up...and ask a few Polar Bears about the extent of their Winter hunting grounds.

It sure seems to me that some folks have an interest in seeing certain ideas promoted, and are picking & choosing among the data and studies to support pre-chosen conclusions.

Now prove ME wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:34 PM

". . . only the facts should be subject to such scrutiny."

Yes! And I'm asking you to cite the sources for your assertions so we can determine whether or not they are, indeed, facts.

Philosophy 115:   Principles of Logic.

I take it from your ducking and dodging that you are unable to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:53 PM

In the Seattle Times, March 23, 1994

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders.
by John A. Baden, Ph.D. and Tim O'Brien

Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13, 1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super-hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses. Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests, they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

John A. Baden, Ph.D., is Chairman of FREE and Gallatin Writers.

Tim O'Brien contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM

Yes...in **1994** the issue was not quite clear yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:58 PM

Can I take it that you will not give Amos's link a listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:14 PM

Bill D,

What may be alarming, if you think about it, is the fact that the issue has been politicized so badly that the 1994 facts are now regarded as blasphemy.

Note: Dr. Baden supports my clain, here questioned, that global warming would be very helpful in the production of food to feed our exploding population:

"In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:02 PM

Has anyone given thought to the end result? Yes, I can see that crops may grow bigger and for longer as chilly lands warm up and stay warm longer. But does anyone have any idea of just how warm and dry a previously inhospitable climate may become?

Reminds me of a friend of mine. Knowing himself to be a bit of a spendthrift, he married a woman whose frugality he admired.

They didn't stay married long - turned out she wouldn't let him spend an unnecessary penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:21 PM

It's true, turning the planet into a greenhouse could produce some BIG plants; as well as wipe out a lot of real estate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:34 PM

John A. Baden, Ph.D., is head of FREE (Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment), a right-wing think-tank best known for the junkets it hosts each year for Federal Judges and its effort to indoctrinate those judges in Libertarian ideology. FREE receives major funding from Shell, ExxonMobil, General Motors as well as the usual extreme right wing philanthropic funds such as Olin, Castle Rock and Claude Lamb.

John Baden is also a past member of the National Petroleum Council.

I would hardly take his word as unbiased scientific evidence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

Well, this is certainly not accurate. China right now is choking on some of the most polluted air in the world. Their enlightened self-interest is prompting them to find ways to cut back their carbon emissions. They are trying out new and cutting edge technologies and urban planning methods that will both reduce greenhouse gas as well as reduce the pollutants in their air. A side benefit will be that they will have a competitive edge when they take these new technologies and methods to market. The US, because of its unwillingness to be a world leader in this respect, will be playing catch-up in the new sustainable technologies market for a long time. The benefits of being at the cutting edge of these technologies is great. The negative consequences of intransigence on this issue are enormous.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:36 PM

"...does anyone have any idea of just how warm and dry a previously inhospitable climate may become?

Well, the scientific models do not support the idea the Earth will become dry and inhospitable at all. The increase in temeperature will be modest, less the 2 degrees F, and will be mostly due to a rise in the minimum temperature. This will produce an increase in H2O evaporation > increase in humidity > increase in rainfall > increase in plant growth and crop yield > increase in O2 production, an integral part of plant photosynthesis. Yes, a limited amount of global warming is the best thing we can hope for to counter the outrageous population growth in the Third World.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:39 PM

By the way, since 1994, some of the passages in the Baden-O'Brien article cited in red have been demonstrated—by events—as just plain wrong.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM

It is just one article. You asked me to support my contentions and I have done so. Your turn to show sheets, not just be a critic.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 10:32 PM

Okey dokey, pdq, here you go.

Ecobridge.
CLICKY #1.

Woods Hole Research Center.
CLICKY #2.

Earth Observatory (NASA).
CLICKY #3/

This is just for openers. I could give you several dozen more, but my wife just called me to get ready for dinner.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 11:24 PM

*grin*...but those don't agree with Baden!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 12:22 AM

"In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores."

I think that what was meant was CO2 - NOT CO! CO would eventually kill most things...

I remember hearing a while ago that this 'effect' was more wishful thinking that proven fact - I know of no such proper research tests undertaken. And the 'bigger is better' theory forgets to take into account mere physics - the structure of an ant, for instance will not let it survive if it were to grow to the size of an elephant - genetics will inhibit most plants 'growing to double their size' and surviving - The 'Intelligent Design' promoters rebel at the idea that such plants would be able to 'evolve' to 'survive' in the changed situation...


"Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent."

In ONLY SOME areas, and also the droughts will increase in the rest... funny how the proponents of that keep omitting the second, even more important bit, especially for Australia... when the Murray Darling dries up, as it is currently in the process of, then Australia's food bowl is kaput... and we have already built houses, roads, and factories over lots of the areas previously used to grow food...


"amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere lags behind the temperature increase"

Ah... now you have the problem of just how do you measure this - and taking into account that the original deniers of 'change' used this argument, now you want to disallow this argument? heheheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 01:34 AM

"1994" I can't believe that anyone would base their beliefs on scientific data that's so old in relation to todays technology. The Earth's still flat, is the learning curve that you're swearing by. GPS, Thermo & Nuclear imaging, we even understand Polar Bears Porpoises now when they tell us that not only are the caps melting but the snow packs on the Earths highest mountain ranges are disappearing so rapidly that Lake Meade is now half of what it once was when 1st damned only a few yrs ago. Even the rivers have given up, the Colorado is going the way of the Platte.
Whew, it's getting hot in here, would some one pass the water,,,,,,,,,OH SHIT!!!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 02:46 AM

Water, Barry, What's that?

We've only got Coke and Pepsi left...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM

I think we should cut down or even ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide   It's a chemical found in reservoirs and lakes. Causing dreadful problems and adds to the Global Warming which will kill us all.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:25 AM

Does this have anything to do with anything?

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:30 AM

The "CO" was probably caused by the subscript being dropped in the copy prosess.

Of course carbon dioxide (CO2) is the gas being discussed by global warming fans, not carbon monoxide (CO).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:01 AM

ms lemon...the last article you cited is great. Everyone should read it begining to end.

It covers several points including the need plants have for CO2. Also addresses the points about increased rain, crop productivity and others.

It also shows that, from 1950 to 1994, the West got warmer, the Rocky Mountain states got wetter, and the East got colder.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:04 AM

'Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1)."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:20 AM

MEasuring global warming at the atmosphere to ground level substantiates the warming hypothesis, while measuring it at the stratosphere inverts it. This is exactly the effect you would predict if your hypothesis was that atmospheric carbon was creating the greenhouse effect, reducing heat loss by transfer out of the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 05:15 PM

The Greenhouse Effect.
The Culprits.
Consequences.
The Skeptics.

"We must no longer think of human progress as a matter of imposing ourselves on the natural environment. The world—the climate and all living things—is a closed system; what we do has consequences that eventually will come back to affect us."    —United Nations Environmental Program

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

Well, unca Donald, you question the veracity of any source that does not pass your political lithmus test, so perhaps others have the right to question your source.

It is a Left-Green think tank on a college campus in the "People's Republic of Massachusetts".

It is nice to see the quote by Paul Ehrlich, a fine man with whom I was on a first name basis at one time. The quote you linked to is:

       "Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - Paul Ehrlich

Laypeople, in this case, means non-scientists, and implies "people do not know what they are talking about".

The author of the article also gives his opinion that "It is human nature to protect your own interests."

Another true statement. There is an almost unlimited amount of research money available for those wish to support global warming and next to no money to people who will not support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

pdq, there is not just one author there, there are several. I tend to suspect that any scientific research center whose findings don't agree with your preconceptions is a "Left-Green think tank."

How about NOAA? How about NASA? Are they also "Left-Green think tanks?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:54 PM

ms lemon's post of   09 Apr 08 - 10:25 AM is also a link to a NASA site. The content of each site is controlled by a "Responsible NASA official" whose name can be found at the bottom of the text.

I have no problem with the NASA sites. Good information, but remember something. They receive huge amounts of federal money and studies of "global warming" will keep many people working. They will be out of work if the concept is proven false. Same with college studies, federal research grants, expose books and Green websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:13 PM

In short, anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint. By definition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:15 PM

Weak Don. Real weak. Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM

"Laypeople, in this case, means non-scientists, and implies 'people do not know what they are talking about.'"

Wrong. There are "laypeople" who often know as much about a specific field as specialists in that field. Sometimes even more.

"Laypeople" is one of those pejorative terms that incompetents like to toss out when questioned by someone without a degree in the field, even when--especially when--the expert in the field says something that is obviously ridiculous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:08 PM

Okay, pdq, NASA it is. CLICKY.
ANOTHER HELPING.
TOUCHÉ.
LOTSA STUFF HERE (links).

But all that money is going to influence their findings, right? So NASA's just another one of those pesky "Left-Green think tanks."

Well, pdq, this is not for your benefit, but for the enlightenment and edification of those who like to make up their own minds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Karin
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:11 PM

There is probably a combination of natural climate change AND global warming in place now. The town that I live in (Waveland, MS) was completely wiped off he map in 2005... hurricane Katrina... we were point zero. Our climate has been changing in an obvious/noticeable way for several years. This winter has been very strange. 'Something' is happening. I could list major southern lakes that are drying up ~if you like :) ~In any case, there were tornadoes in the middle of Atlanta last month and when I was up in Jackson this weekend whole sections of of the city had been destroyed by tornadoes...all of this activity is unusual.
Didn't the UK have some horrible flooding in Sheffield that was considered unusual. I remember seeing the images in the news.
As for NASA being under the government thumb...hmm...I think the bush administration is doing as little as possible to help end human participation in Global warming...so if the bush admin is pressuring NASA it doesn't add up for me. Bush is an oil man and so is the VP. I don't think the government cares, they do exactly as they please without regard for science or man.
Something is happening to the climate and it isn't exactly the norm as we've known it. Climate change~Global Warming...or both.
Get ready for the water wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 11:20 PM

Particularly to the point:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:22 AM

By the same token, PDQ, there is a lot more money available to researchers in evolution than there is to those seeking to prove intelligent design. And more for geophysicists who accept satellite measurements of the globe than those seeking to prove a flat-earth hypothesis. And more for the study of thermal properties of materials than for the analysis of phlogiston tides. The reason is that as more data has been gathered and verified, humans interested in progressing reject the more stupid for the less stupid, because it hads been found over the millennia that the stupid ideas are more harmful to survival broadly than the less stupid ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:36 AM

As far as NASA's receiving federal funds for research into global warming is concerned, have you checked the federal government's position on global warming lately? The idea that NASA is influenced by federal funds to promote the idea of global warming just doesn't wash.

Check the link I put in a post above marked TOUCHE!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Wolfy
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 08:13 AM

I have read all comments posted with much interest. There has been only one reply that has been influential and informative. Global Warming is an emotive issue and its fires are stoked by politicians and their greed. We should do all we can to look past their greed.
The one factor, which is the most important, seems to have been overlooked. The Earth is more than capable of looking after itself. We are all Emmets (little ants) in the grand scheme. Crucial to this is the Earth's ability to restore its balance, whilst still remaining in productive chaos. There are positive and negative feedback mechanisms in play that operate for every nanosecond that we waste our emotions in worry.
I have not read one mention of increases in the water and carbon cycle with direct regard to increased deep sea carbon burial, the importance of the Tibetan Plateau, chemical weathering of siliceous lithography and atmospheric carbon drawdown. Not one mention of the importance of upland areas in the Holocene or geographical distribution of plate tectonics. Not one mention of sun spot cycles, paleo-magnetic origination or planetary pole flip. Not one mention of Milankovich cycles, delta carbon13 correlations or oxygen18 indicators. All of these are of vital importance in any warming debate. (I ain't never heard a politician mention them either).
My advice to the readers would be not to worry about such a trivial thing as perceived human atmospheric content intervention and advise you should all concentrate on more relevant matters. Mother Earth is billions of years old and she has billions to go.. she will still be here when the human species has evolved upwards or destroyed its trace completely. She doesn't need or want our help.
Power to the people!!!

W

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:23 AM

Thanks for that post, GUEST,Wolfy. Here is a link to an explanation of your Milankovich (also spelled Milankovitch or called Croll-Milankovich) cycles:

                   written in easy-to-understand language

Guest,Wolfy....if you have a degree is science, you need to post more often. Over 99% of the posts on Mudcat are by liberal arts majors. People with degrees in philosophy, journalism, English lit or humanities often have a hard time seeing through the smoke-and-mirrors crowd who produce most of the internet sites with hidden political agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:56 AM

Well... I happen to be a professional scientist with some 35 years working experience. Anyone interested in the evidence as it stands at present could do worse that look at the

Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO - 4) Report

This link is for the English language version, other language versions are available. (Warning... some 570 pages!). All the sections give an extensive list of references. The Report does not make for very happy reading.

While the Report is about much more than climate change, the section dealing with the atmosphere does say

Climate change is a major globalchallenge. Impacts are already evident, and changes in water availability, food security and sea-level rise are projected to dramatically affect many millions of people. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (principally CO2) are the main drivers of change. There is now visible and unequivocal evidence of climate change impacts. There is confirmation that the Earth's average temperature has increased by
approximately 0.74°C over the past century.

The very last sentence of the report concludes

...the scenarios point to the need to act quickly. Our common future depends on our actions today, not tomorrow or some time in the future.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:03 PM

A slightly fuller extract concerning global warming:

There is now "visible and unequivocal" evidence of the impacts of climate change, and consensus that human activities have been decisive in this change: global average temperatures have risen by about 0.74°C since 1906. A best estimate for this century's rise is expected to be between a further 1.8°C and 4°C. Some scientists believe a 2°C increase in the global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels is a threshold beyond which the threat of major and irreversible damage becomes more plausible.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:24 PM

Unfortunately, your Milankovich cycles do not provide the nul hypothesis.

Statistically, the range of known temperatures prior to the rampup of increasing carbon emissions (which began increasing dramatically in the early Industrial Age) does not actually touch the range of our most recent and projected measurements. This is one reason why average T is being viewed as function of increasing atmospheric C.

Additionally, the rates of change of Milankovich cycles do not appear, on first review, to be at all consistent with the rates of change being measured in environmental T. This miltates against these cycles being the causative agent.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

Not trying to pick a fight with you, redsnapper, but you are doing the same thing the liberal arts majors do. You are simply quoting sites that have a political agenda.

GEO is part of the UN and UN money (20% of which must come from the United States) paid for collecting data and writing. The GEO 4 report is 570 pages because that insures nobody will read it. They will only read the conclusion section, which is, as usual, only opinion.

UN activists are trying to turn this into the second biggest transfer of wealth, about 3 trillion dollars, from developed countries to the Third World. The planned confiscation does not include India, China, Indonesia, etc., most of the world's people will not be asked to make any sacrifice at all.

To put the number in perspective, developed countries have transferred about 8 trillion dollars by buying oil. The US National Debt stands at about 9 trillion. Golbal warming remedialtion is really about fixing something that is not broken. I want that 3 trillion spent on health care, road repair, cancer reaserch, and other proper causes.

You quote one source which says "Some scientists believe a 2°C increase in the global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels is a threshold beyond which the threat of major and irreversible damage..."

Well, fact is that about 1.8 degrees F will produce world-wide abundance of food due to about 30% increase in crop yield. Unfortunatly, for the next generation of Third World babies, such an increase is extremely unlikely as Man's activities have no affect on the climate at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: redsnapper
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM

pdq... some may of course suggest that the UNEP GEO-4 is politically-motivated, but the fact remains that extensive lists of references of the scientific input are available at the end of each section. And I do not think I am not doing what a liberal arts major does... whatever that is... rather quoting from a source which itself is fully scientifically-referenced.

fact is that about 1.8 degrees F will produce world-wide abundance of food due to about 30% increase in crop yield. Well that is theoretically possible... if climatic and other changes haven't destroyed the arable land to grow it on.

Respectfully,

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM

The current population explosion will destroy the finest arable land, not the mythical global wrming. The Great Central Valley of California,te greatest food producing region on planet Earth, will be a net food importer by 2050. That same year, Nigeria is expect to reach a population of over 300 million, up from the present 55 million. Yes, Nigeria will equal the current population of the vast United States!

Let's try to fix real problems. If there are climate problems, we did not cause them and we certainly cannot fix them. We can just observe.

Also respectfully submitted,

"pdq"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:04 PM

The GEO 4 report is 570 pages because that insures nobody will read it. They will only read the conclusion section, which is, as usual, only opinion.


PDQ:

WIth all due respect, this is the bluntest piece of reactionary BS invective I have ever read. Surely you jest?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 03:17 PM

I worked for a time as a technical writer for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. This gave me a bit of insight into the way that power companies work.

The Department of Energy commissioned the BPA to find new, economical sources of electrical power. After much research and number-crunching the minions of the BPA came up with an answer they didn't like. So they redid the research, tried their damnedest to shuffle and reshuffle the numbers, but they kept coming up with the same answer. The most economical new source of electricity was not building more power dams. Nor was it building coal-fired power plants. Nor did it involve building anything.

Conservation.

There was much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the upper reaches of the BPA, but the incontrovertible facts led them, kicking and screaming, to that unavoidable conclusion. Biting the bullet, they decided to initiate a program that funded residential weatherization. Local Public Utility Districts advertised the program, urging people who heated with electricity to allow the PUD to hire a local contractor and insulate their homes, and apply a number of other measures, such as installing double-paned windows. This would be free to the home owner, or at very low cost. The home owners who chose to participate loved it because it lowered their heating bills by a substantial amount. And since each individual home used less electricity (and a lot of people took advantage of the program), that freed up a great wad of electrical power to be used elsewhere. Mission accomplished!

Where I came into it was that all the houses in the program were inspected after the work was done to make sure it was done to code (some local contractors did try to cut corners, we found), and I was the guy who compiled the inspectors' reports as they came in and wrote a synopsis of them in semi-plain English so the folks upstairs could decide whether to cut the local contractor a check or not. And also to keep track of how well the program was going.

It went so well, in fact, that Washington State initiated a similar program for people who heated with oil, and I wound up writing inspection reports for them, too.

While I was sitting there poking away at the computer, I kept my eyes and ears open and had a chance to watch a number of very interesting people in action. It turned out to be quite an education!

Suffice it to say that, although the home owners who heated with oil loved the Oil Help program, the oil companies were very unhappy. It seems that they felt the Oil Help program was eating into their profits and they tried a variety of political and legal gambits—unsuccessful, happily enough—in an effort to stop the Oil Help program.

Anything like conservation or environmental considerations were just not part of their thinking. The only operating principle seems to be "Sell More Oil!"

But what are they going to do when the limited supplies finally run out? I keep hearing the same figure. The earth's known oil reserves should last for maybe another forty years. The hope of the oil companies is in unknown reserves. And should more oil be found, at the rate it is being consumed, how much longer will that last? What is needed—NOW—are alternatives to oil, and coal. None polluting, renewable energy resources. They're out there, just for the taking, and there is a lot of profit to be made from developing them.

But many of these folks have no sense of the future beyond making the next quarterly report look good. Beyond that, they are not even taking into consideration their own future. What are they going to do when the oil runs out?

And for those who don't get the point, let me spell it out:   This is not a matter of "Left-Green" thinking, nor is it a matter of politics. It is a matter of simple good business sense. How are you going to make a profit—or even a living—selling widgets when there are no more widgets?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:11 PM

Gee, I just noticed! Anyone who is concerned about global warming and environmental degradation is now a "Liberal Arts" major. Well, it just happens that some of we Liberal Arts majors also have a damn good education—not to mention experience working—in the sciences. And if there is anything in the sciences that I'm unsure about, I know who to ask.

We do love to try to kill the messenger, don't we, pdq?

GUEST,Wolfy complains of all the "not one mentions" he (didn't) encounter, indicating that he didn't look at the sites linked to. There is plenty there, and more. Then Wolfy goes on to enunciate the "Pollyanna" verses that were previously spoken by Charlton Heston in a little dissertation he gave, adding his voice to attempts to debunk global warming, on the longevity and durability of the planet Earth.

Quite right. Planet Earth will indeed survive, no matter what we puny humans do to try to poison it.

But—will we puny humans?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 06:10 PM

I will be more than generous with my time, Don. Just let me know when a scientific issue stumps you. Least I can do.