Why I Remain A Global Warming Skeptic

[burk48237]

Interesting article in the NY Times (Of all places) today. It was about studies and analysis of climate change over the last 250,000 years. Ironically the study was covered to support GW theory, but they seemed to be missing something. The headline itself was interesting : "The Study of Greenland Ice finds Rapid Change in Past Climate". Now correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the CO2 effect of GW been a relatively new phenomenon? With in the last hundred or so years? Here's a few key quotes:

The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been "strangely stable."

Am I mistaken, the most stable period of the earths climate appears to be when man has had the most impact? I don't recall any Hummers being driven around on the during 4000 BC.

In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability.

Should I Repeat, EVEN WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION, THE CLIMATE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF STUNNING VARIABILITY

The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, Dr. White said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.

We are proposing changes that are beginning to destroy the economies of the West, causing food shortages, and untold hardship, because some scientist are predicting a one degree rise in the next hundred years? It is absolute madness. Especially when we now know from the past that their have been periods in the earth's history when global temperatures changed as much as 18 degrees in a couple of decades with no human contribution.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

One Final Quote. This is from a National Review article that as a whole is to political to post here. If someone wants the link, PM me.

When seen in this light, there is an obvious pattern: These examples are largely drawn from environmental science, systems science, epidemiology, and other fields dominated by integrated complexity. Note the lack of agencies that conduct research in physics, electrical engineering, and the other fields that dominated the executive-level dialogue between scientists and politicians during the Eisenhower administration. The science that informs public debate increasingly can not use experiments to adjudicate disagreements, and instead must rely on dueling models. We wouldn’t purposely expose randomly selected groups of people to lead paint, and couldn’t build parallel full-size replicas of earth and pump differing levels of CO2 into them.

The issue is that most of the policy arguments we are facing are in fields of integrated complexity. The problem is unlike "normal science" where one can just do an experiment to verify results, this is not doable in the field of GW, their are far to many variables, almost an infinite amount. The Author explains it best here.

Consider global warming. No serious scientist has ever disputed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, since it has been shown in replicated laboratory experiments to absorb and redirect infrared radiation. The key open scientific question has been the net effect of increasing CO2 concentrations after climate feedbacks. This is a problem of integrated complexity. We can’t even approximately isolate a component of the climate system because these feedbacks are predicted to occur over decades and are globally interconnected; for example, polar ice caps melt, which changes ocean circulation patterns in the Atlantic which changes cloud formation in Florida and so on. We have constructed large computer models to represent and predict the integrated global climate system, but how do we know they are right? Not absolutely certain, but certain to the degree that we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that unequally weighted objects will fall at the same rate in a vacuum? We don’t, and we can’t, because we can’t conduct decisive experiments to test them.

One of the things that ID opponents emphasize strongly and it is true, is that ID is not "real" science because it's not falsifiable. In other words you can not show it to be false by scientific test. The same is certainly true of much of todays GW science. At this time we CAN NOT show it to be false using verifiable scientific methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[crkempton]

i'm 100% with you bud.... i've yet to hear anything truly convincing of the theory

[aks_29]

I agree.

Also, what's the deal with permafrost?

How can it melt if it's permanent?

If the liberal media is ready to lie to us about how permanent our frost is then what else could they be lying about?!?

GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?

MAYBE!!!

[GregC]

Originally Posted by burk48237

We are proposing changes that are beginning to destroy the economies of the West, causing food shortages, and untold hardship, because some scientist are predicting a one degree rise in the next hundred years?

Someone needs to invent a new word to describe this sentence, because "hyperbolic" is simply insufficient.

Originally Posted by aks_29

I agree.

Also, what's the deal with permafrost?

How can it melt if it's permanent?

If the liberal media is ready to lie to us about how permanent our frost is then what else could they be lying about?!?

GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?

MAYBE!!!

Please tell me your post is a joke.

[aks_29]

I'll never tell.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by GregC

Someone needs to invent a new word to describe this sentence, because "hyperbolic" is simply insufficient.

Please tell me your post is a joke.

Well at least we agree that the C's are going to be NBA champs.

[Brad Johnson]

They said there'd be punch and pie here.

[bongomania]

I've got a punch for you.


Is it my imagination, or is it getting rapidly warmer in here?

[Trevorus]

Originally Posted by dangnewt

The costs of addressing global warming are higher; but I would suggest so are the risks of not doing anything.

Your post quite accurately pointed out why these types of policy decisions are so difficult. Just remember that if we are wrong on this, our heads get blown off.

Your example is a bit too unrelated. There have been many cases of heavy metal poisoning to give us plenty of reason to move away from using them in products that come into contact with people.

The thing with the GW stuff is that we have record of much warmer mean temperatures on earth, with no adverse effects recorded at those times. Also, the fact that there is MUCH more to the system of climate than atmospheric CO2, and it's not talked about looks very fishy.

It's like that little article someone wrote on dihydrogen monoxide. That is deadly stuff... But it's really water.

[MakiSupaStar]

You bring up some compelling points Burk. I'm on my iPhone so I will read that article later. However I will say this. I don't really think scientists have concluded that man is solely responsible for climate change. As mighty as we are mother nature is far mightier, but I think its feasible that man's current activities could very well act as a catalyst, or grease to a machine already in motion. I'm not just talking about the burning of fossil fuels, but things like burning rain forest to make room for more methane producing cattle, the use of coal for power plants not to mention the the effect of mining it and other substances, the over fishing of our oceans, the amount of trash and waste we produce (I read that for some bottom feeding fish as much as a third of their diet is plastic), pig farming, the pesticides we use and ingest (especially when a great deal of our food comes from parts of the planet with cheaper labor and less stringent qaulity standards than our own), all the way down to the seemingly small decisions we make as individuals from the types of crops we grow to the types of food we eat having the impact of millions of voices, and many more things to calculate
as variables into that same complex model you were talking about.

In the past when the climate changed during the time when mankind was on the planet there were not nearly ad many people on the planet, so the numbers influenced would be considerably smaller. Additionally, history, as a documented medium only really applies to peoples advanced enough to have the means to pass their story on through a medium capable of enduring the ages. A population that used heiroglyphs is more likely to be able to effectively document a catastophic natural phenomenon, than say a nomadic population that was primarily verbal in the way it documents things. So history might not have accounted for all peoples lost in a catastrophic natural disaster like a flood or a hurricane, let alone something in the scale of an ice age.

Anyway, before I come back with a more educated response, I wanted to throw up a few ideas as food for thought. Personally I'm undecided where I stand on GW, but I do find the idea that man has little impact on the planet a little flawed when you couple it with the current trends of the environment. I think GW will eventually divide people of the planet along what essentially will become old lines in the sand on how man views its place on the planet. Western thought might suggest man is to control and conquer the environment, while the eastern philosophy might be more inclined to attain harmony and balance.

[burk48237]

DANGNEWT The costs of addressing global warming are higher; but I would suggest so are the risks of not doing anything.

Were not paying 4$ for gas because their isn't enough gas, we're paying it because GW activist have demanded that we limit the supply, by limiting drilling. Ironically, many who would love to buy a more fuel efficient, lower emitting vehicle can't afford it because of the effects of high fuel cost. GW Activist have mandated the ethanol programs that are contributing to driving up the cost of food to the point where many of the worlds poor can no longer afford staples. I would suggest when people start starving to death or losing their means of supporting themselves in mass numbers the costs are far two high.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Were not paying 4$ for gas because their isn't enough gas, we're paying it because GW activist have demanded that we limit the supply, by limiting drilling. Ironically, many who would love to buy a more fuel efficient, lower emitting vehicle can't afford it because of the effects of high fuel cost. GW Activist have mandated the ethanol programs that are contributing to driving up the cost of food to the point where many of the worlds poor can no longer afford staples. I would suggest when people start starving to death or losing their means of supporting themselves in mass numbers the costs are far two high.

I think you give these so called GW activists (aren't they just called environmentalists ) way too much credit and clout. I would not give them a fraction of the juice compared to that of the oil industry. There is a great old book by Upton Sinclair called "Oil". It offers a lot of incite even today. Anyway, I would argue that we are paying what we are paying because that's what the oil industry wants us to pay. It's in their best interest to keep our demand high and the supply low. It's almost like these so called GW activists are working in unison with those they're protesting against.

[dangnewt]

Originally Posted by Trevorus

Your example is a bit too unrelated. There have been many cases of heavy metal poisoning to give us plenty of reason to move away from using them in products that come into contact with people.

.....

But that is my point. In spite of evidence that suggests harm; there is always a lag before action is taken. And the lag is always accompanied by claims that action is not needed because it really isn't that bad or that the costs of action outweigh the benefits.

Going back to lead paint - it took a number of actions and some missteps and some recalibrations of the right combination of enforcement, education and subsidy to figure out how to effectively bring the lead levels down in kids, but after 30 years, we have done that and people don't complain quite so much about the regs as when they first came out.

My fear on global warming is that we tie ourselves up in knots waiting for the perfect scientific solution with the perfect series of carefully calibrated measures that cause the absolute minimum amount of dislocation to our economies and lifestyles and we have let the problem get worse.

Do I know that this will be the case with Global Warning? No. Have I seen this movie before? Yes.

My point is that I'd rather treat it as something serious and do something and if it turns out to be nothing then we've wasted some money; then to not treat it as something serious, do nothing and be wrong and then see what we have wasted.

[kserg]

Originally Posted by bongomania

I've got a punch for you.


Is it my imagination, or is it getting rapidly warmer in here?

People tend to blame global warming on me...


...because i am hot...


(It's my new pickup line btw... "I blame global warming on you, because you are HOT" or "Have the scientist study you yet? Because i think you are the cause of global warming!)

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Were not paying 4$ for gas because their isn't enough gas, we're paying it because GW activist have demanded that we limit the supply, by limiting drilling. Ironically, many who would love to buy a more fuel efficient, lower emitting vehicle can't afford it because of the effects of high fuel cost. GW Activist have mandated the ethanol programs that are contributing to driving up the cost of food to the point where many of the worlds poor can no longer afford staples. I would suggest when people start starving to death or losing their means of supporting themselves in mass numbers the costs are far two high.

You lost me there Burk. I am entirely willing to go along with the bit about how GW can't be proven or disproven.

But the idea that "GW activists" are to blame for out current fuel pricing crisis, that is seriously tinfoil-hat black-helicopter territory. The problem I see with conspiracy theorists is they are far too afraid of the obvious truth of predatory corporate policies wrecking our lives, so they invent fantabulous alien/CIA/GW activist stories to distract themselves and "tilt at windmills", fighting imaginary fights that are more compelling and yet unwinnable (and un-provable/falsifiable) than the tedious and depressing reality of mankind's callous quest for wealth and power and the corporate machines they build and use to that end.

I guess my position applies to "GW activists" as much as to those that believe said activists are to blame for it all.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by bongomania

You lost me there Burk. I am entirely willing to go along with the bit about how GW can't be proven or disproven.

But the idea that "GW activists" are to blame for out current fuel pricing crisis, that is seriously tinfoil-hat black-helicopter territory. The problem I see with conspiracy theorists is they are far too afraid of the obvious truth of predatory corporate policies wrecking our lives, so they invent fantabulous alien/CIA/GW activist stories to distract themselves and "tilt at windmills", fighting imaginary fights that are more compelling and yet unwinnable (and un-provable/falsifiable) than the tedious and depressing reality of mankind's callous quest for wealth and power and the corporate machines they build and use to that end.

I guess my position applies to "GW activists" as much as to those that believe said activists are to blame for it all.

+1. You stated my point better than I did.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

I think you give these so called GW activists (aren't they just called environmentalists ) way too much credit and clout. I would not give them a fraction of the juice compared to that of the oil industry. There is a great old book by Upton Sinclair called "Oil". It offers a lot of incite even today. Anyway, I would argue that we are paying what we are paying because that's what the oil industry wants us to pay. It's in their best interest to keep our demand high and the supply low. It's almost like these so called GW activists are working in unison with those they're protesting against.

GW activists tend to be the root of all of evil according to Steve. IMO that lets an awful lot of people off the hook. Why, I don't know.

And no, merely calling them "environmentalists" wouldn't fulfill the negative vibe requirement needed by the accusers.


No one is saying GW is caused solely by man yet it repeatedly gets couched that way by some. Unless he's contending that man has zero effect on the Earth, I still don't get his point... other than merely being against something.


edit: Upon rereading his post I see that it's actually one guy he's talking about... GW activist. I hate that guy too.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by kserg

People tend to blame global warming on me...


...because i am hot...


(It's my new pickup line btw... "I blame global warming on you, because you are HOT" or "Have the scientist study you yet? Because i think you are the cause of global warming!)

How many arrests so far?

[SirCanealot]

I'd say I'm always in two minds about global warming, but I'm not -- the time has come to change, but we SHOULDN'T go back to living in medievil times!

I mean, culling travel*, culling food, cutting back on light bulbs. Isn't it all getting a bit silly?

I'll give you an example of how I roll. I'm not using that light? I turn it off. Not using the TV? I'll switch it off at the switch and not leaveit on stand by. I notice someone's left the bathroom fan on? I might go and switch it off (I also used to go around my old work place for 15 minutes a day when on evening shift switching off people's monitors!). This is what I call senseless waste -- for the sake of a tiny amount of effort, you're wasting power.

However, if I'm using my PC even for some TINY minute thing, I'll leave it on 24/7. I'm using it, screw turning it off.

*Especially air travel -- there's always big stinks about them in the UK. Err, what? I'm going to visit my friends in Sweden once or twice a year. Now I have to pay more money. Do you think I'm not going to make the trip because I have to pay more money therefore we save the planet???? No, I'm still goin to visit my friends...

Here's another fact (though I can't back it up properly): A volcano erupting pumps out TONS more pollution into the atmosphere than we can in a while.

It also pisses me off when people talk about "saving the planet." You ignorant ass, you're NOT saving the planet? Do you think the planet needs saving? Do you think you're bigger than the planet? If the planet wants, it'll get rid of us, and in a million years the planet will be 100% healthy again.
The reason we're trying to cut back and help the planet is so our sons and grandsons can possibly have a nicer life.

Sorry for the rant, but there's SO MUCH BS with "carbon footprints" in the UK right now. Congestion charge ($16 charge they make you pay for driving into central London) is renamed to the green charge. More air tax? We need to save the planet! Car/fuel tax? Planet! More tax on alcohol/cigs? Save society! Tax on dumping rubbish*! Planet!

*Yes, they're really thinking of putting this in to force people to recycle#/dump rubbish elsewhere.

#even though recycling centres here don't have any way to cope with the amount of stuff they get sent right now.


Ahhh... it's been a long night shift in work. I wonder how many typos there are in this post

[funkydanbass]

Even if 'Global Warming' is not what many other scientists claim it to be (or not be) surely the aspects that contribute to it (or not), should be looked at on there individual merit.

Deforestation and habitat removal causing extinction, pollution, drought...

Even if the world doesn't heat up causing polar ice caps to melt and flood coastal cities we're still going to run out of oil, we're still going to run out forest, we're still going to further damage the ozone layer and pollute the air we breath....

I'm not sure if I've missed the mark but I don't care if Global warming is real or not.
In Australia we are constantly on water restrictions, our climate seems to have shifted from what I remember it to be 10 years ago and much of our farmers have been struggling with drought for years. New wood chip mills are being built to cut down some of our oldest growth forests in Tasmania.

I know it's not that simple, local and national economies are affected but one day WE WILL run out of natural resources...