Global Warming Update

This is not new.

Global warming is over hyped that is for sure.

Probably we should wait for the peer review and feedback before rushing to judgment. There are many compelling arguments for the opposite position.

While I'm sure there will be a knee-jerk political opposition from environmental groups, there may actually be problems with the approach. I'm sure we'll hear more in the next few months.

[sarcasm]No way man. I say we dismantle our entire society right now, just in case.

I'll run off ream after ream after ream of 'save the world' flyers tomorrow at the office, you burn the lights and stay on your computer night and day getting the word out.

Babs Streisand, when she'd finishes staining her new 2500sq ft 'rainforest mahogany' deck off the back of her third winter home, can hop in one of her many limos and sit in the back of it with the motor running outside of a 'save the world' conference.

Why on earth wait for 'peer review' to support a position? C'mon, we need to get the word out right now! [/sarcasm]

Above post ^^ rated VERY FUNNY by me.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...ertainties.html

I think I'll put the emphasis on "uncertainties".
We ain't playing craps, you know. Well, some of us aren't.
...although- I would dearly love to push some overcooked ziti up Mme Diva Streisand's nostrils.

No, let's just pretend it doesn't exist. Perhaps Rumsfeld will set up his own office to investigate the environment, since he doesn't like what scientists or the EPA is telling him. (This kind of political pressure worked with the CIA, right?)

Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change (link)



Let's all stick our fingers in our ears and whistle. La la la la.

That's an understatement.

Yes, Yes, Jacket. As tie said... let's all stick out fingers in our ears and whistle lalalalalalalala.

And would it absolutely HURT to try to reduce those green house gasses? Would it KILL you to drive on properly inflated tires, get regular oil changes and tune ups? Is it going to KILL us to really push alternate energy sources? How 'bout NOT driving a car that gets 9MPG. 12MPG. 18MPG. Who does that hurt?
Really. WHO looses here? Exxon? Nah. If they were SMART- they would LEAD the charge. You know, the more I hear these "arguments" against, the more I am utterly and totally convinced that these are no more than "get the hippy!" arguments. You don't like environmentalists, so ANYTHING they say must be fodder for your conspiracy mill.
Jesus. Does it ALL have to be politics? You people have no rational arguments for conservation and being mindful of the planet- all you have is arguments against EVIDENCE. Is it REALLY alousy idea to be mindful of the environment? Is it? Seriously- WHO does it hurt to do a little conserving? Who gives a flying**** WHAT the argument is? It can ONLY do GOOD. Including for the economy. But I am sure you'll have some beautifully politically charged argument for all that too.
For Christ's sake. If it was your friggin' party leading the environmentalist movement, you'd be on the wagon with bells ringing and flags waving. Environmtalism. It's GOT to be a partisan thing. Smart. Very smart.

How about I can drive whatever car I want and can afford?



right. like your ANWR evidence?



conservation itself won't work. the difference between libs and conservatives is that libs don't take into account the economic fallouts that occur with drastic measures of conservation, or lack of exploration.

if drilling in ANWR were to happen, that alone would have boosted our economy in many ways... including providing thousands of jobs in practically all states..

but whatever. we won't agree on this. i have nothing against the environment. however, we have a responsible to both the environment and to the people.

Whether or not the Earth naturally goes through heating and cooling cycles is not in debate. Whether or not we are in a hot cycle is not in debate.

What is debatable is how much our pollution contributes to the process and what risks the heating cycles poses.

I happen to find the "global warming" argument against pollution to be, perhaps, the least compelling. Pollution offers far greater immediate risks to health and environment than the as yet determined contribution to the Earth's overal climate shifts.

Oh, and drilling in ANWR has nothing to do with Engery policy. It's pure political pork.

Isn't it about time for Global Cooling to become trendy again?

The new ice-age fire and brimstone* "repent ye sinners" doomsday stories are so much more imaginative.


*Opps, I guess it would be ice and snowballs rather than fire and brimstone.

and i would offer that economics doesn't take into account the environmental fallouts that occur with economic growth.

how does changes in the environment affect the GDP? it doesn't. though it should since businesses run off the availability of natural resources.

GDP value must reflect eco-health, report says

and about global warming, i believe that it is occuring. check out Wood's Hole Research Center's The Warming of the Earth for a brief summary of the evidence and problems that exist. it probably takes 15 minutes to read the whole thing.

it is easy to say that at time X, it was warmer than now, or point Y, it was cooler than today. if you look through geological literature, you'll find that earth's temperature (and amounts of CO2) have appeared to change drastically. 100 million years ago, there were swamps in northern Canada (and Canada was very near where it is now). even on shorter time-scales, science notes and accepts changes.

When have Ice Ages occurred?

the worrisome part for me is that these events can be linked to causes. the current (near-)global retreat of glaciers and the increase in CO2 (and as a result, temperature) can be linked to the Industrial Revolution ie rise of capitalism.

capitalism and it's associated economy are theoretical. they aren't governed by natural laws. our environment is. so an economic collapse will not lead to the end of life on earth. in fact, an economic boom will lead us down that road. an environmental collapse however, can, and has, brought the end of life on earth before.

adam

Right, I personally don't care if a car's emmissions make the globe warmer (well, I do, but I'm making a point here.) There are other reasons to drive more efficient, cleaner cars.

That's not to say that I'm a car nazi, telling people what they can and cannot drive. It's just that I encourage people to be as efficent as they can be.

Hm, Jacket. How 'bout that EPA report. Screw my evidence. Look to the Government's.
lalalalalalala... I can't heeeeaaar you...

Why don't you use leaded gasoline while you are at in.

and what would you expect an organization whose sole purpose is to be advocates for the environment is going to say?

I'd expect them to say something different as much as I'd expect NOW to publish a report on the health risks of abortion.

Encourage that through a market solution- make the more efficient cars more affordable, make them fit the needs and desires of the buyers, and the majority of new car buyers will buy them.

That way, most folks can follow Jacket's "I can drive whatever car I want" while at the same time, the car they want is the one that's affordable and happens to be more efficient at the same time.

Aside: I drive a 1968 VW beetle and a 1962 Chevrolet Impala. They're properly tuned, properly inflated, and well-maintained. I'm doing my part for the environment by keeping them on the road rather than in a junkyard. One form of conservation is keeping things in service.

I'm also looking at a 1968 Caddy with a 472 cubic inch engine, which I will convert from carburetion to modern fuel injection- My conservative estimate is that it will get about 29 highway, 22 city.

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm



From a letter to the editor of Scientific American:

This sounds like a good idea but it is unrealistic.

In order to create a viable market solution you would have to convince the major car manufacturers to get onboard and dedicate their resources to it. This won't happen at the moment without government involvement because they are making too much money to seriously care.

You'll also have to appease the fossil fuel companies that stand to lose a lot from a decreased reliance on their commodities. This is made more difficult by the fact these companies currently have a lot of government backing and support.

Yes. This is where I thought you'd go. Pretty lame. A governemnt agency. Stocked by the President. An Agency whos sole job it is is to monitor the environment. That's it. Being censored. By politicians. Why would they do that, Jack?
Man, you got something for everything.

This is not they way to bring folks round to your way of thinking. Or is it just the choir you are interested in preaching to?

Lomborg is not exactly the finest example to use, here. For the last few years, scientists everywhere have been pointing out statistical fallacies, confusing issues (which is a huge tactic of his- one of his major supports is that Humans are living longer lives... yeah. Good one). In fact, Lomborg is the academic and scientific equivalent to Andrew Lloyd Webber. He compiles bits and pieces of statistical evidence, rearranges the context and fits them into his own mold. And I am not the only person to say so. Lots of folks- not all of them environmentalists- but all of them scientists have had a field day with his "research" and reporting methods. I read his work a couple or three back... prompted me to do some much further study. I don't have links supporting what I say, but I am sure I can find a few directly related to the rather hearty and systematic academic spanking he got.

Just an example off the top of my head. Lonborg correctly asserts that pollution and control standards have generally improved in industrialized nations. And then he completely ignores one of the single BIGGEST problems (as even Bush's administration points out) is the drastically increasing polution from the developing world. FOrest depletion. He asserts that there is no reason to assert a decline in forest land (the ole "more trees now than when Columbus was..." argument). He also makes no distinction between types of forests (Boreal, tropical, etc) and OLD and NEW growth- which is of MAJOR importance. The Tropical forest issue is not tackled at all by Lomborg. Lomborg also quite correctly asserts that ocean harvesting has quite nearly double since the 1970s... and then complety fails to discuss the result of this. He uses increased productivity as evidence that there must be nothing at all wrong with the world's oceans! Now, if that is not a flaw in logic, I don't know what is. As I recall, his book was absolutely PEPPERED with this kind of thinking. I felt that there were flaws in the way he was thinking, so it drove me to do more research. FOr every assertion "A" he made, he supported with "B" and "C" and then completly ignored the following statistical or analytical points "D" through "N" which would have gone against his conclusions.

The "Skeptical Environmentalist" only made me more skeptical about him, his metheods and his research.

As I said before- the direction is uncertain. "Are we doing harm?" This is probably one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen and you'd have to be either completely blind or have quite the agenda of your own to miss it. Proof? LOOK AROUND YOU.

Hey, you know what? this is where I thought you'd go. Now that's lame. Man, you got something for everything.

No answer, then. Right. I see where you stand.
Well, I suppose it is admirable to stick to your guns.

Why do you need to force the companies making the cars to change through legislation and bullying?

If you think efficient and affordable cars are worth the customer's money, start your car company and produce them. Either you'll be wildly successful and everyone will want your cars, or the established car companies will correctly see you as competition and produce efficient vehicles of their own to compete for your market.

Is a letter to the editor the best support you can find for Lomborg? Science's review is posted on the same site: http://www.lomborg.com/files/Scienc...%2012-11-01.pdf . Scientific American posted excerpts from a number of chapters, and then rebuttals of them all http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...3F6809EC5880000 . It's fake science, full of inaccuracies and plain falsehoods.



It's a classic tragedy of the commons situation.

my point was, it's really to say "oh yeah, i knew you were gonna say.. how typical..." etc. etc.

does that really bring the argument anywhere?

If you want to keep this about science and not agendas, then consider reading Lomborg's responses to the critiques of his work.

http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

He may not be entirely correct, but then, neither are those busy shouting him down.

Enjoy, if you would, http://www.lomborg.com/radiotv.htm

Concerning the "spanking" the academics give Lomborg, "I think they doth protest too much."

And not all of the environmental movement is riddled with "extremism and misinformation". It seems you want to throw out the whole movement. Well, not YOU, per se. I state, in my brief discussion of his work, where I think he is correct. I have also stated- ad nauseam in various discussions we have on this topic - that there is room- and more than enough room- to make market and environment go hand in hand. But it has to start somewhere. What I see more than anything is the idea of "MEMEMEME" that comes before the whole. We don't LIKE to be told what we are doing is harmful, so we don't listen. Or, more common, environmentalism interferes with the markets. None of this is immediate enough and folks will only listen when they have to. After which... too late. This is a political issue and it should not be. There is no need for it to be. When Bob Dole ran for president way back when, he stood in front of a group on Minnesota loggers and said, "Economy must come before environment" and it is THAT sentiment that I battle.

Seems to me all of this environmentalist debunking is nothing more than a hobby of those who have a vendetta against what some see as a "leftist conspiracy". It has nothing at all to do with the environment- it has to do with power. And we all suffer for it.


As for lomborg's site, I've been all over it, even somewhat recently (I was discussing him with another friend). Lomborg has critics and supporters. Please do not think the critics are nothing more than extremists or folks with an ulterior motive. They are not. Hell, one of the published findings on his work was by a statistician who was appalled by his abuse of statistics. He simply used sources (Lomborg's own) and simple math to eiother corroborate or suggest serious problems with his line of thought. And dammit, I wish I had that article. It was in a science journal., I know. When... which... yuh. Good luck to me. I'll give it a shot.

He's been reprimanded for scientific dishonesty

Another source (WRI):


However:



His University collegues have dedicated a web page to the "debate" that is ongoing, if you care to peruse.

Once again, nothing is ever clear-cut...