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...

Well, I'd say nothing is ever clean cut. There's entirely too much clear cutting... but that's just the enviro terrorist in my coming out.

And of course, Lomborg responded to both the Sci American article, and the Danish court that sentenced him on the basis of the Sci American article, without taking into account his responses.
Declaring judgement without considering the response to his accusers is hardly just.

http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/

Look, vmarks. I am only pointing out that you are using a dubious source as support for your argument. I read his book. I read lots of his articles. I alse read lots of stuff that specifically addresses his research methods and findings.

Have you read his book? If not, you should. It does not take a terminal degree to find fault in his methodology. He leaves himself wide open for this kind of critique. He poses a theory based, as he would have it, in science. Others have challenged it based on science.

This is why I don't think he is the best support for your argument. There are plenty of other folks who would do the job FAR better. Even Dr. Stott (in the above mentioned article) has far more convincing research... but even he says "maybe". Science today sticks generally with "probably" when asked about Global Warming. It answers "Probably" when asked if human activity is the primary cause. "Probably" in science is a HELL of a long way off from "Definitely" or even "Very Likely". Still, I'd rather not play the odds because we are playing with too much at stake. What- you think I WANT to believe this stuff? YOu think I WANT it to be? I'd rather it wasn't. I was hoping Lomborg was going to go a LOT further- was going to supply some really good evidence to the contrary. He did not... and it was not hard to see that.

Fine, let's ignore Lomborg. Let's completely walk away from him, here and now.

Is there room for questioning the reports from the EPA? That some people behind some of the reports may be pushing an agenda rather than the hard science?

It's a shame we got so tied up on Lomborg, I was rather hoping we could talk about the market solutions, because I was beginning to get at how the market and environmentalism can go together without governmental coercion.

Well, then you and I are in complete agree ment. There's no conflict here. The only roadblock I see IS the government, and I see removal of items from the EPA report as helping that along. I mean, who the hell knows what information is correct any more? As I said- this should not be a political weapon- and it is. It seems to me that the only way a market will grow is when demand grows. It seems to me that the governemnt is supressing that demand by supressing this type of information- information that would spur on a market. I am quite disgusted with this governments idea of markets that will direct themselves- who are so very clearly DIRECTING those very markets. Well, it seems clear to me, anyway. Are their other motives?

As for the authors of the report and theur agenda- do you know HOW these reports are created? The scenario you describe is... well, unlikely. FIrst off, there are HUNDREDS of authors. And months and months of editing. And language choice. And approval. And reapproval. Write. Rewrite. By powerful folks and not so powerful folks. A whole lot of folks would have to be pushing that same agenda. But I ask- who is the more likely culprit as far as agenda pushing? Those who include the information? Or those who struck it out?

The difficulties come from the fact that each of the issues (CO2, deforestation, etc) has been studied in detail by a number of different people...often coming to alternate conclusions from the same data. There are many subtle facets that have not been conveyed in easily understood ways. This, unfortunately, is largely because of the lack of real dialogue between scientist, the public, and the policy makers. The public and policy makers want concise, easily digestible sound bite, and the scientists have not (or cannot) deiliver the sound bites. Once you generalize something, another person comes along and says "but you forgot about this...." The whole Lomborg debate is riddled with this.

Lomborg tried to write in an accessible way. He got waylayed for it - as may be appropriate - from an audiance he wasn't necessarily trying to reach. Had this actually been a peer reviewed summary of the field, I suspect things would have been played out differently.

The whole picture is too complex to ask for a simple overview.

Now, having said that, is global warming a scam? The jury is out. And the vociferous extemists on both sides are not helping. Bombastic policy makers regurgitate jargen that they don't comprehend, and scientists continue to generate conflicting data that they can't explain to the lay-person.

One large variable that doesn't seem to get factored into the Lomborgian assesment is that the global temperature changes (while naturally dynamic) did not previously have the sustained emissions that semi-industrialized societies have. The role of effect policy in the mitigation of some contributers (Lombard uses SO2 emmisions) is ignored; in Lomborg's case, he doesn't seem to aknowlege the fact that increases in emmisions have slowed down because of policy. Kudos, however, for not believing Malthus.

The answer? A falling sky is not imminent, but we really haven't had long enough to know the impact of our sustained activity. Hell, the ocean may step up its mechanism for scrubbing of CO2 out of the air. We don't know how everything interconnects yet, so we can't make sweeping statements. We often forget that nature is dynamic and can rely on feedback-loops. For example: Greenhouse caused bt too much CO2? Warm, wet climate that results allows plants to thrive...clearing more CO2. We simple do not want to be inconvenienced by mother nature's machinations. So the extreme environmentalists fight to keep things as they are (or were recently) while the extremist on the capitolist side try to keep the economy chugging at a good clip (as it seems to us it always has...).

Prudence does, however, dictate caution. And reduced pollution is never an unworthy goal. Extremism does more to alienate people from the real issues than it does to help effectively birth creative solutions. It also drives markets (which hate uncertainty) away from investing is something that may or may not have an impact.

well said.

niether side can prove their case.

I am continually puzzled by the argument about the Greenhouse effect, and why the issue hasn't been settled. Certainly, it should be possible to calculate the amount of ozone in the ozone layer, the rate of ozone regeneration, and calculate how human greenhouse gas creation affects these?

Do we even know the ratio between human/natural greenhouse gas generation?

Any pointers to some actual research would be appreciated.

I am sure if it were as easy as you point out, it WOULD be done by now. Research is easy to find. VERY easy. EPA, various environmentalist groups, international enviro groups, other governments, anti enviro groups, science journals- Google it up and take your pick. You could read for weeks and not come up for air. Rather than guess and post over, under, around or to your level of understanding, it may be most effective if you did the search yourself.

Here's one: Cow flatulence makes up 1/2 of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions

Yep, there's an election next year. Let's get all that trotted out and fired up. After all, the last guy to actually run against Bush, and lose, "wrote a book" about Global Warming (tm) and probably invented some of that stuff.

Quick, find out what's really going on:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...9650975-5410221

Start here.

What is it with you people throwing these odd ball "Enviro Buckers" at me? You know, it is not hard to find actual SCIENTISTS and environmental EXPERTS who will pose ACTUAL evidence against human involvement in the greehouse effect- or even that it is anything other than natural, or that it will have a negligible effect- all using ACTUAL SCIENCE. No politics, no hidden agendas.
You folks keep throwing out these... less than scientific - more than ulteriorly motivated people. Dubious sources to say the least.
Dixie. Jeez.
OK. Here's refuting Dixie on just Ozone:
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/dixy_1.txt. I can go on, if you want.

Once again, VERY similar tactics to Lomborg. Gives very correct stats and facts, but fails to put them into context or even show their proper effect on the overall theory. Not to mention, she also dispenses some COMPLETELY INCORRECT information which is based in nothing less than lousy research.

C'mon. Do I need to pop up with the REAL anti greehouse crowd? Put folks up there that SUPPORT your argument with REAL science- not this maniplulated statistical crap stuff.
C'mon, this is just solid rehash. We went through this crap a year ago. From what I recall, ramjet came up with some excellent stuff VERY well supporting your "I don't believe it" idea. Actual science from, like, ACTUAL scientists!

Back to my point: WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Again: WHO CAN IT HURT? And then there's this: YOU'RE REALLY WILLING TO MAKE THAT GAMBLE because of POLITICS?

All of this is always answered with a political stance of "ooooo. greenhouse is hip again." or
"Dixie Lee says..." or "you gut reacting over emotional enviro terrorists" or "snicker... oh, those tinfoil hat wearing libbers." FEEBLE. You can do better than that. PLEASE don't make me make the case for you.

Again... DIXIE?!?! PLEASE don't tell me the majority of your knowledge on the subject comes from there.

Oh. And by the way. Nobel for Chem in 1993. Look it up. READ the study. Sherwood Rowland. Just a scientist. And one of the most powerful agruments that exists for our own involvement in greehouse effect.

Thanks for the encouragement (I was trying to be funny with the Dixie ref). I'll read up on it when I have time, including the Nobel stuff. In the meantime, I'll take your word for it that there are plenty of REAL scientists who've disputed the idea of global warming due to human involvement and also plenty of suspect scientists who've decided that their research should support a political agenda (on both sides of the issue).

Sorry, fin. Missed the funny. I was still trying to get over the Lomborg. My apologies. The Kennedy jokes were good, though!

OK. THis: It is painful in spots, it can be very dry, but it is not TOO hard to read- it does not fly so far over an intelligent person's head:

"Ozone Depletion: 20 Years after the Alarm", Chemistry and Engineering News 1994, 72, 8-13.

Now, yeah, you can get that through a library, but I am sure it can be found on the web somewhere. Anyway, that there is pretty much the work that sets the standard. If someone has refuted it, I don't know about it so I can't post anything directly contrary.
THis is the overview on the Nobel site. It is pretty interesting. If you're into this sort of crap. Where's boots when you need him? Friggin' lazy ass summertime chem perfesser
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/educa...1995/index.html

Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are two separate environmental issues. The greenhouse effect can occur (or so the theory goes) even if the ozone is 100% intact. Ozone depletion may enhance the greenhouse effect but that question's also still up in the air (pun intended).

Now to the debate over global warming: Is it happening? Yes, it is. The climate has been getting warmer since about the early part of the 19th century. If that's when the inflection point occurred, is it then credible to blame global warming on greenhouse gases? I don't think so.

Should we do what we can to conserve anyway? Sure. Why not? But the role of government in all this should be more carrot than stick. I like the idea of tradable emission credits as a way of encouraging industry to be more environmentally aware. Also, if we have more livable cities and the redevelopment of brownfields, it would be easier to construct better mass transit alternatives that would actually meet the needs of people. I'm sure most people would still have a car but maybe some families would feel less of a need for a second car. And a migration back to the cities would also relieve pressure on our green spaces and obviate the need for the re-creation new infrastructure in the suburbs and exurbs.

Global warming is a complex issue:

The last Ice Age just ended (in geological time) yesterday, so by definition, what we are in is a period of global warming.

During most of the age of dinosaurs, there were no ice caps. The colest the poles got during winter was about 35 degrees. Palm Trees grew at Greenland's latitude.

The earth is a dynamic, ever changing planet.

Since the start of the Industrial Age, sea levels have risen a foot. Thats a lot. The burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming. But is it the sole cause? no.

The concern over human contribution is not that global warming is happening. The concern is whether or not it is happening TOO FAST.
We have an impact on the planet. We specialize in negative impact, though ours is not exclisively negative (seems to me our positive impact is busy fixing our negative one).
As rog says- why not conserve?
Here we differ on who needs to take the lead. YES. I believe the populace needs to lead the charge. Part of that charge leading will only come through education. Stifling information does not help that education. There is a huge argument here that the governemnt should not be forcing anyone to do anything environmentally speaking- and that would be fine if all things were equal. They are not. "Trust industry". OK. I would have no issue with this- if industry were trustworthy. So, we need the government to provide a few things. Carrots, yes. I agree with carrots. And a big ass stick when the carrot fails to do its job.

As for sloe causes: correct- fossil burning is NOT the sole cause. But what of that? IS this supporting an argument that would say we should do nothing? Does that mean we should just continue on the way we have been? Fossil fuel burning IS a cause we can do something about. We cannot do much about cow farting.

Of course it is a complex issue. And both camps clouding it does not help.

For all we know, global warming could be a natural, beneficial occurence. There are no humans, cows, SUVs, or factories on Mars, but it's experiencing planetary warming as well...


The biggest reason for global warming is the simple fact that the sun is getting hotter. Let's concentrate on keeping our air and water clean. There's really not much we can do about warming.

Or not. We'll find out, though!



Not on these time scales it isn't.

I don't want to argue with you about science, and say you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not a climate scientist. But Bush seems to prefer that the science be censored. So what can I do?