Global Warming Update

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?