Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Global warming: a new religion

Global warming: a new religion (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
It isn't easy to count the trees on your property, but it is certainly easy to tax the food you buy at the supermarket. (Either the producers, the supermarket, or you would pay it.)

Anyway, I still think you're digging your own grave. What's coming is a solution. The longer you try to put it off, the harder it will be.
So, you're veggie then?
Or are you just lecturing me on what I should be doing whilst doing nothing yourself?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 10:43 PM
 
Thanks for trying to be civil, Doofy. That's a step towards rational discussion. The next is separating and casting out the egotistical and judgmental arguments keeping us from a real and legitimate understanding of the situation and each other, from both sides. We've got to put our shields down and open a line communication.

It is wrong and rather immature to judge anyone here, particularly without knowing each other personally. Those who judge you just because you drive an SUV are wrong and add nothing to the cause. But judging others and claiming to be better than they is equally as wrong and immature, though I can understand the cause.

Somebody's gotta step up and break the cycle, otherwise we'll be stuck in the vicious little circle of insults indefinitely. The same goes for the level. Some countries have to lead the movement towards environmental harmony with the Earth, otherwise we can spend literally a few more hundred years pointing fingers at one another and being angry while all the world goes to hell.

To say that everything is too chaotic so nothing can be done about the problem is quite simply a cop-out. Few would react this way if it related directly to their loved ones, but yet are content to leave the health of our world solely in the hands of corrupt and compromised politicians with ulterior agendas and motives. No, that is not acceptable. That is why our world is in the state that it is in at the moment. Because we "bury our heads in the sand".

It is unrealistic to expect that all politicians and movement leaders will be pure-hearted and never use these legitimate and important causes for their own agendas. But between them we must choose the lessor evil and try our best to expose the truth through rational, civil discussion, not by insulting other people or subscribing to an "all or nothing" policy. Such inflexible policies are most often the tools of dishonest manipulators (you're either for or against us) and the source of many injustices (zero tolerance).

So, we can agree to disagree (or not) on the particular political agendas and strategies or particular people, organizations and governments, as long as the purpose is to seek the truth, but I think we can start by agreeing on the fundamental problem of environmental damage and global warming and then maybe we can work our way towards a better understanding of the politics involved.

I for one have a big problem with politicians using environmentalist as an excuse to violate our basic personal liberties and privacy. I would never agree to something like the British proposition, and I think we should be outraged about it (and yes, even those of us who do not live there, for whatever happens eventually affects us as well).

And though there are some good points about the excessive materialism we practice in the West I don't think that should be a major issue in environmentalist (at least not any more than it absolutely has to be). I think that largely has to be a personal decision, and is beyond the jurisdiction of law and government, much like church and state.

I think we are in a crisis environmentally, and I support those organizations who are out there trying to help with good intentions, yet I have a problem with GreenPeace. They don't seem to be very good at keeping up with the latter part of their name. I think most of them are fanatics and do more harm than good. Who knows, I my be wrong.

But, the point is that I also have some pretty big objections with some things done in the name of environmentalism, but that does not mean I don't believe in global warming or in caring for and repairing the damage done to the environment.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
The process you trust has not even identified a cause of this warming trend. It could be an entirely natural fluctuation. I don't know why you insist you think you know the cause or a solution because no one does.
Sure it has. You're about 6 years behind the curve. It's called "humans." Ninety to ninety-nine percent certainty, They say.

It's about time you took your head out of the sand and started updating your knowledge on the subject. First it was whether global warming was happening; that ended a long ago. Then it was whether humans are causing it; that one was mostly over by the turn of the millenium, and finally laid to rest this past year. Now it's shifted to "but can we do anything to reverse what we've already caused?", coming to a MacNN forum near you.

Good luck, and bon appetit.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Mar 2, 2007 at 01:03 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2007, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
So, you're veggie then?
Or are you just lecturing me on what I should be doing whilst doing nothing yourself?
I'm veggie and I don't drive a car.

Or are you just lecturing me because you don't have any real arguments?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
The process you trust has not even identified a cause of this warming trend. It could be an entirely natural fluctuation. I don't know why you insist you think you know the cause or a solution because no one does.
This is a puzzle. You apparently have internet access, and yet you are decades out of touch. I imagine you on some desert island putting messages in bottles hoping that they get posted to macnn.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Sure it has. You're about 6 years behind the curve. It's called "humans." Ninety to ninety-nine percent certainty, They say.
You mean 90-99% likely to be responsible for half of the warming of the last 140 years? With admissions of uncertainties about Anthropgenic and natural aerosols, climate sensitivity, the possibilities of other unknown forcings etc.

You people keep misrepresenting the very evidence you use to support your arguments.

The IPCC isn't saying that it is conclusive that man is responsible.

The IPCC isn't saying that man is the sole cause.

The IPCC isn't saying that they understand climate fully.

But you people keep acting like the work is done, climate has been deciphered and man is the cause of climate change.

Medical Assistant: Doctor, Mrs. Johnson is here. She is wondering if you have the results of here tests.
Doctor: Yeah, I just finished with them.
Medical Assistant: And?
Doctor: Well, I'm 90% sure that as much as half of her illness is due to her lifestyle. The rest seems to be due to some environmental concerns around her home, genetics etc., though we're not completely sure of the impact of those things on her illness yet.
Medical Assistant: What about the prognosis?
Doctor: It's hard to say right now. I'm sure she'll have SOME kind of long term effects and it MAY eventually turn out to be terminal, but we really can't be sure of the severity of her symptoms or whether she'll survive. If she changes her lifestyle and starts taking care of herself right now, she may have a chance to make things better but it may be too late. All we can do is try…and wait. Maybe as we know more we can do more.
Medical Assistant: Alright, I'll let her know.

a few minutes later…

Medical Assistant: Mrs. Johnson?
Mrs. Johnson: Yes, you have some news?
Medical Assistant: Yeah, I talked to the Doctor.
Mrs. Johnson: And?
Medical Assistant: He said that it's your fault you're sick and if you don't start doing something about it now you're gonna die.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 01:16 PM
 
This Scientist has an interesting take on it.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 02:10 PM
 
NO no no -- we're melting all the ice caps in the Solar System. Uranus is OURS!!11!!
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 02:42 PM
 
typoon quotes, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. Where do you come up with these guys? LOL
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
This Scientist has an interesting take on it.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
I thought the whole point of the article was that the sun was warming, and that is why we see the increase in temperature on Mars and Earth. But, the scientist is directly quoted saying that the sun's irradiance has been falling for the past 17 years?

A cooler/less radiant sun makes the earth/mars warmer?
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2007, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
typoon quotes, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. Where do you come up with these guys? LOL
Found the link on the Drudge website. Found it interesting and posted it.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 12:07 AM
 
Most of use went to a school that taught about global warming. It wasn't a big deal but it was important. We were encouraged to recycle and reduce pollution by riding our bicycles or taking the school bus. These were also the same people that proposed theories about the Ice Age, Pangea, Dinosaurs, and so on that became fact in our science books. Science became a relgion overnight.
Flash forward to 2007 where Global Warming has become an epidemic. If we don't take care of the problem now than we are doomed! But we can slow the process for a time by driving green cars and using solar power for our homes. Now there is an economical problem and social problem. We still have a Upper Class, Middle Class, and Lower Class in the USA. The people in the Upper Class will be able to afford these new green cars. Even the Upper Middle Class can get their hands on a green car. Unfortunetly, the Lower Middle Class and Lower Class have to turn to cheap gas guzzlers. Now are the Upper Classes going to help pay for green converters for the Lower Classes? Nope. The Lower Class cars will simply be taken away and eventually declared illegal in the USA. Who is going to enforce these laws across the world? It will have to be the USA or Europe because we are responsible for everything.
Think of the propoganda that is spread about Global Warming. In the movies, the USA is either the cause of the earth turning into a barren wasteland or they are helping to repair it. No wonder other countries hate us. We are going to destory them all.
Will promoting Global Warming mean that electric company can shut down our power if we are using too much? Is the government going to control what citizens can do?
I see the problem of Global Warming and it is mostly hysteria. I just wonder if we are carrying this too far.
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 01:35 AM
 
I'd also like to point out that recycling glass may just further our output of CO2, as it's made of some of the most plentiful materials on earth (very low cost searching for it), and re-melting it down takes considerable energy, not to mention other aspects of glass recycling --cleaning, transporting, sorting.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 01:53 AM
 
ApeInTheShell, you do notice that the "problem" of "hysteria" you're talking about is entirely a hypothetical situation based on movies you've seen, right?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
ApeInTheShell, you do notice that the "problem" of "hysteria" you're talking about is entirely a hypothetical situation based on movies you've seen, right?
Says the person who's never been spit at because the only car I could afford was a 1992 not-quite-so-eco-friendly Cutlass.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2007, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by typoon View Post
Found the link on the Drudge website. Found it interesting and posted it.
I'd find it much more credible if it were an American scientist, for two reasons:
1. Americans do the best science in the world, bar none.
2. We can be more sure that the scientist really exists, has credentials, and isn't being misquoted or having his position stated inaccurately.

It just seems very convenient to have these quotes from some random Russian "scientist" who may or may not exist, who may or may not speak English -- and who is completely at odds with all the mainstream science.

Perhaps I'm wrong and this guy is for real. But it is always better to be skeptical -- else you'll end up bombing the wrong country (no offense).
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
I'd find it much more credible if it were an American scientist, for two reasons:
1. Americans do the best science in the world, bar none.
2. We can be more sure that the scientist really exists, has credentials, and isn't being misquoted or having his position stated inaccurately.

It just seems very convenient to have these quotes from some random Russian "scientist" who may or may not exist, who may or may not speak English -- and who is completely at odds with all the mainstream science.

Perhaps I'm wrong and this guy is for real. But it is always better to be skeptical -- else you'll end up bombing the wrong country (no offense).
Right...a dissenting view from a scientist and suddenly were not even sure if he exists. Where's your proof on the existence on the thousands of climatologists who's science conveniently agrees with your faith?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 01:14 PM
 
The nature of peer-reviewed literature is accountability. The authors are accountable to not only exist but also be able to reproduce their results, and produce descriptions of their methods which allow others to do so as well. That's what makes peer review matter and press releases and wikipedia entries and blogs not matter. At least that's the way it should be.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The nature of peer-reviewed literature is accountability. The authors are accountable to not only exist but also be able to reproduce their results, and produce descriptions of their methods which allow others to do so as well. That's what makes peer review matter and press releases and wikipedia entries and blogs not matter. At least that's the way it should be.
Yep.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Right...a dissenting view from a scientist and suddenly were not even sure if he exists. Where's your proof on the existence on the thousands of climatologists who's science conveniently agrees with your faith?
Sorry, I missed it the first time: could you just quickly explain how "believing something which every known method of modern scientific, rational and logical testing indicates to be true" constitutes a "faith" or "religion," while "not believing believing something which every known method of modern scientific, rational and logical testing indicates to be true" doesn't?

Coherently, please. Thanks.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 02:33 PM
 
He's talking about to your propensity to defer to the experts' say-so rather than to the evidence on which they drew their conclusions. He does ignore the fact that you also have a history of citing the evidence directly (though not since he started posting here). To have no element of "faith" in your convinction, you really shouldn't ever appeal to the authority of "scientific consensus" and should really base your arguments entirely on the evidence.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Right...a dissenting view from a scientist and suddenly were not even sure if he exists. Where's your proof on the existence on the thousands of climatologists who's science conveniently agrees with your faith?
Okay, I googled him. Apparently he does exist. However, he has no papers on the climate and has various "crackpot" views (e.g., he doesn't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas).
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
He's talking about to your propensity to defer to the experts' say-so rather than to the evidence on which they drew their conclusions. He does ignore the fact that you also have a history of citing the evidence directly (though not since he started posting here). To have no element of "faith" in your convinction, you really shouldn't ever appeal to the authority of "scientific consensus" and should really base your arguments entirely on the evidence.
Exactly
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The nature of peer-reviewed literature is accountability. The authors are accountable to not only exist but also be able to reproduce their results, and produce descriptions of their methods which allow others to do so as well. That's what makes peer review matter and press releases and wikipedia entries and blogs not matter. At least that's the way it should be.
Indeed. I don't doubt this scientific process. But upon repeated requests by you, myself, and i believe some others we still have yet to see peer-reviewed journals that do the following:

-Prove what the effects of warming(climate change?) will be.
-Prove that man is the dominant cause
-Prove that reducing emissions will lessen the severity of the damage being done
-Prove that the measures suggest by some will even reduce the emissions a significant amount (gas tax, etc etc).
-Prove that disaster is immenent with the current rate of warming.
-Project with certainty what temperatures the earth will warm to with our current/future projected CO2 output.
-Rule out any other possible explanations (changes in the sun's intensity, natural climate cycles, increased natural greenhouse gas producing phenomenon, a shift in earth's orbit, a shift in the rotational axis of the earth, etc etc)

I've been pleading to see these journals. No one has stepped to say "here's what our arguments are based on." And until you can show me journals that prove all of the things listed above there is still entirely too much doubt to be able to enact the drastic measures proposed.

All you have been basing your arguments on is the journals that:

-Prove the earth's climate is warming(changing?).



So please, show me your evidence on the topics I've listed above so I can move them to the "in support of change" column and perhaps rethink my views to compensate.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Indeed. I don't doubt this scientific process. But upon repeated requests by you, myself, and i believe some others we still have yet to see peer-reviewed journals...
I'll get into that a bit later, but the other side having gaps in their legitimate citations doesn't justify the use of completely illegitimate citations. Linking to a blog or press release, or even a traditional news article isn't in the same ballpark as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalists need to sell papers, and no one is going to double-check them or reprimand them for blowing the story out of proportion.

-Prove what the effects of warming(climate change?) will be.
-Prove that man is the dominant cause
-Prove that reducing emissions will lessen the severity of the damage being done
-Prove that the measures suggest by some will even reduce the emissions a significant amount (gas tax, etc etc).
-Prove that disaster is immenent with the current rate of warming.
-Project with certainty what temperatures the earth will warm to with our current/future projected CO2 output.
-Rule out any other possible explanations (changes in the sun's intensity, natural climate cycles, increased natural greenhouse gas producing phenomenon, a shift in earth's orbit, a shift in the rotational axis of the earth, etc etc)
I'm really not comfortable with the term "prove," because it's pretty subjective, but I think it's safe to say you meant something along the lines of demonstrate to a probability justifying action.

The literature has met that standard for the climate changing, and human's being the cause. That's why the IPCC report said that humans are the "primary" cause. That covers "man is the dominant cause" and "rule out other causes" since those are basically the same. Also, other causes don't really help, since warming will be just as bad for us humans no matter what the cause.

But I agree they need more evidence for solutions. Just because greenhouse gases happen to have built up incrementally by everyone's combined usage doesn't mean they have to be alleviated in that style as well. That conclusion seems to be a completely unjustified uncreative knee-jerk reaction. The issue boils down to "we have too much CO2 in the air," and "not enough people care." Well the solution is obvious to me: those people who do care should invest in a way to dump a huge amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (perfect example, Richard Branson). And the solution is clearly not: those who care should invest only just barely enough so that they are no longer contributing (aka carbon credits). That strategy is doomed to failure for the simple reason that it can only work if every last person on earth starts to care. No issue in history has ever had unanimous support from everyone on earth. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Anyway, snow-i, I'd like to add to your list of evidence requests, something to address more intelligent solutions. For example, This note from New Scientist (sent by a reader) has what I consider a brighter strategy.
"Ian Jones of the Ocean Technology Group at the University of Sydney, Australia, has suggested expending energy to synthesise fertiliser and using it to grow plankton in the ocean to capture carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, your article on urine recycling explained that CO2 would be saved by separating urine from sewage to avoid the cost of removing nitrogen and phosphorus (23/30 December 2006, p 45).

So why not combine these benefits and dump separated urine directly into sunny areas of open ocean?"
You can't justify any demand that every person change their daily behavior without fully exploring solutions like this one. Convincing everyone to cooperate is a lost cause. Even getting everyone to adopt a new technology is unlikely, unless it's compatible with their existing hardware investments. But find a new carbon sink, like algae or plankton or yeast or some derivative thereof genetically enhanced to maximize carbon fixation, that has real promise. Supplement such a program with taxes if you have to, but there's just no good way to "conserve" your way to a solution to this problem.

So please, show me your evidence on the topics I've listed above so I can move them to the "in support of change" column and perhaps rethink my views to compensate.
Yeah. That's what has to happen. People aren't afraid to change their minds, they just need more convincing than the climate change scientists have managed to come up with, so far.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2007, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'll get into that a bit later, but the other side having gaps in their legitimate citations doesn't justify the use of completely illegitimate citations. Linking to a blog or press release, or even a traditional news article isn't in the same ballpark as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalists need to sell papers, and no one is going to double-check them or reprimand them for blowing the story out of proportion.
This much is true. I always viewed those as showing some dissent that it isn't 100% consensus between every scientist in the world. I agree with you there.


I'm really not comfortable with the term "prove," because it's pretty subjective, but I think it's safe to say you meant something along the lines of demonstrate to a probability justifying action.
I thought about clarifying what is meant by proof. If you remember that 9 page discussion we had on the definition of proof i think you know what I meant by proof as a scientific term .

The literature has met that standard for the climate changing, and human's being the cause. That's why the IPCC report said that humans are the "primary" cause. That covers "man is the dominant cause" and "rule out other causes" since those are basically the same. Also, other causes don't really help, since warming will be just as bad for us humans no matter what the cause.
Then I will concede those points.

But I agree they need more evidence for solutions. Just because greenhouse gases happen to have built up incrementally by everyone's combined usage doesn't mean they have to be alleviated in that style as well. That conclusion seems to be a completely unjustified uncreative knee-jerk reaction. The issue boils down to "we have too much CO2 in the air," and "not enough people care." Well the solution is obvious to me: those people who do care should invest in a way to dump a huge amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (perfect example, Richard Branson). And the solution is clearly not: those who care should invest only just barely enough so that they are no longer contributing (aka carbon credits). That strategy is doomed to failure for the simple reason that it can only work if every last person on earth starts to care. No issue in history has ever had unanimous support from everyone on earth. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Exactly. Forcing them to help won't help either (like a meat or gas tax).

Anyway, snow-i, I'd like to add to your list of evidence requests, something to address more intelligent solutions. For example, This note from New Scientist (sent by a reader) has what I consider a brighter strategy.
"Ian Jones of the Ocean Technology Group at the University of Sydney, Australia, has suggested expending energy to synthesise fertiliser and using it to grow plankton in the ocean to capture carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, your article on urine recycling explained that CO2 would be saved by separating urine from sewage to avoid the cost of removing nitrogen and phosphorus (23/30 December 2006, p 45).

So why not combine these benefits and dump separated urine directly into sunny areas of open ocean?"
You can't justify any demand that every person change their daily behavior without fully exploring solutions like this one. Convincing everyone to cooperate is a lost cause. Even getting everyone to adopt a new technology is unlikely, unless it's compatible with their existing hardware investments. But find a new carbon sink, like algae or plankton or yeast or some derivative thereof genetically enhanced to maximize carbon fixation, that has real promise. Supplement such a program with taxes if you have to, but there's just no good way to "conserve" your way to a solution to this problem.





Yeah. That's what has to happen. People aren't afraid to change their minds, they just need more convincing than the climate change scientists have managed to come up with, so far.
Again, for the record, I agree. 100%
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 03:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
He's talking about to your propensity to defer to the experts' say-so rather than to the evidence on which they drew their conclusions. He does ignore the fact that you also have a history of citing the evidence directly (though not since he started posting here). To have no element of "faith" in your convinction, you really shouldn't ever appeal to the authority of "scientific consensus" and should really base your arguments entirely on the evidence.
Unfortunately, I finished school in December and am out in the "real world"; plus I'm also doing a distance course on historical geology which is taking up a fair bit of my time. I don't really have the time, energy, or regular library access to be reading new articles on a regular basis. Hell, I only made it all the way through the new IPCC report a couple weeks ago. Having said that, I don't feel that the onus of proof should be on "us" for some of the basic demands he listed. As you've already pointed out, on some of his main points the literature is well-established, relatively mainstream, and very easy to access. Forcing us to "prove" (again, a word that one will probably never find in a scientific article) that global warming is happening, is caused by humans or that it will have certain effects is simply ludicrous; that is a basic tenet of the subject at hand, and one that both sides should be knowledgeable about before beginning the argument in the first place.

The results of taking action against global warming is certainly more ambiguous, and I have done much less research into that topic. However, most of the argument doesn't seem to be whether we can reverse the trend – from what I know, chemically speaking it does seem logical, and previous efforts like the ozone hole have shown that our predictive science can be correct – but whether the trend can be reversed in time, or by a certain percentage, or if one country doesn't do quite as much as they're supposed to but we do. And that's the problem, because those questions are often so ambiguous that 1. the amount of calculation involved would seem to be on Human Genome Project scale, except with far more variables, and 2. the answers might not be apparent until action is already being taken, ie. a trial-and-error approach is a must. So you have a catch-22, where no action is promised until answers are given which may be almost impossible to give until action is taken. Hyuck hyuck! Joseph Heller would've been proud of me.

Finally, the entire "global warming" movement suffers from Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons scenario. This is apparent in your view that
Well the solution is obvious to me: those people who do care should invest in a way to dump a huge amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (perfect example, Richard Branson). And the solution is clearly not: those who care should invest only just barely enough so that they are no longer contributing (aka carbon credits). That strategy is doomed to failure for the simple reason that it can only work if every last person on earth starts to care. No issue in history has ever had unanimous support from everyone on earth.
which seems to indicate that you think those who do care should take on the extra burden caused by those who don't care. Snow-i feels the same, as evidenced by his comment that general taxes on the public (meat, gas, etc.) are not the way to go. This is even worse than the tragedy of the commons, as it implies that all negative benefit, instead of being shared equally, should be shouldered by a certain population.

While this viewpoint makes some logical sense, it doesn't work in actual principle. History conclusively proves that those who can "cheat" a little to profit themselves will almost always do so; you then have some percentage of the population (the "pros" we'll call them) which are eternally trying to make up for the excesses of the rest (the "cons," haha). They are doomed to make less "profit" (whether that be in money, time, what have you) because no matter how hard they work, the cons can just "cheat" a little more to make more profit. In other words, instead of a negative benefit being spread out over all people by one individual's profit motive (a la Hardin), this negative benefit is now concentrated on one segment, and the "cons" don't get a negative at all! Until there is some way to level the playing field – and that's usually with universal laws – you're asking one segment of society to lose profit at the expense of another segment gaining profit.

The Clean Air Acts from 1963-onwards in the US are one example of this. Emitting pollutants was cheaper than actively finding ways to cut down emissions; the negative benefits, such as asthma, respiratory problems, acid-rain issues, health-care burdens, etc. were spread out over the entire population, and thus it made financial sense for companies to continue polluting. At that point, you had a situation as with global warming now; would you expect those companies which advocated reducing emissions to try to "double reduce emissions" in order to make up for those who didn't want to reduce at all? That would not have made any sense – they would've been put at a massive disadvantage, having to continue to reduce emissions as the polluters kept increasing theirs! Thus, the Acts levelled the playing field so that everyone in the scenario benefitted by reducing emissions – in the form of forcing competitors into similar costs, as well as the benefits to health care and environmental health that are incredibly hard to calculate (since they are, after all, so diffuse).

Anyways, I've forgotten my original point. I've had a couple delicious Unibroue Maudite beers, so I'm loquacious to a fault at this point. Hopefully I've made some sort of sense. Or not.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Unfortunately, I finished school in December and am out in the "real world"; plus I'm also doing a distance course on historical geology which is taking up a fair bit of my time. I don't really have the time, energy, or regular library access to be reading new articles on a regular basis. Hell, I only made it all the way through the new IPCC report a couple weeks ago. Having said that, I don't feel that the onus of proof should be on "us" for some of the basic demands he listed. As you've already pointed out, on some of his main points the literature is well-established, relatively mainstream, and very easy to access. Forcing us to "prove" (again, a word that one will probably never find in a scientific article) that global warming is happening, is caused by humans or that it will have certain effects is simply ludicrous; that is a basic tenet of the subject at hand, and one that both sides should be knowledgeable about before beginning the argument in the first place.

The results of taking action against global warming is certainly more ambiguous, and I have done much less research into that topic. However, most of the argument doesn't seem to be whether we can reverse the trend – from what I know, chemically speaking it does seem logical, and previous efforts like the ozone hole have shown that our predictive science can be correct – but whether the trend can be reversed in time, or by a certain percentage, or if one country doesn't do quite as much as they're supposed to but we do. And that's the problem, because those questions are often so ambiguous that 1. the amount of calculation involved would seem to be on Human Genome Project scale, except with far more variables, and 2. the answers might not be apparent until action is already being taken, ie. a trial-and-error approach is a must. So you have a catch-22, where no action is promised until answers are given which may be almost impossible to give until action is taken. Hyuck hyuck! Joseph Heller would've been proud of me.

Finally, the entire "global warming" movement suffers from Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons scenario. This is apparent in your view that
which seems to indicate that you think those who do care should take on the extra burden caused by those who don't care. Snow-i feels the same, as evidenced by his comment that general taxes on the public (meat, gas, etc.) are not the way to go. This is even worse than the tragedy of the commons, as it implies that all negative benefit, instead of being shared equally, should be shouldered by a certain population.

While this viewpoint makes some logical sense, it doesn't work in actual principle. History conclusively proves that those who can "cheat" a little to profit themselves will almost always do so; you then have some percentage of the population (the "pros" we'll call them) which are eternally trying to make up for the excesses of the rest (the "cons," haha). They are doomed to make less "profit" (whether that be in money, time, what have you) because no matter how hard they work, the cons can just "cheat" a little more to make more profit. In other words, instead of a negative benefit being spread out over all people by one individual's profit motive (a la Hardin), this negative benefit is now concentrated on one segment, and the "cons" don't get a negative at all! Until there is some way to level the playing field – and that's usually with universal laws – you're asking one segment of society to lose profit at the expense of another segment gaining profit.

The Clean Air Acts from 1963-onwards in the US are one example of this. Emitting pollutants was cheaper than actively finding ways to cut down emissions; the negative benefits, such as asthma, respiratory problems, acid-rain issues, health-care burdens, etc. were spread out over the entire population, and thus it made financial sense for companies to continue polluting. At that point, you had a situation as with global warming now; would you expect those companies which advocated reducing emissions to try to "double reduce emissions" in order to make up for those who didn't want to reduce at all? That would not have made any sense – they would've been put at a massive disadvantage, having to continue to reduce emissions as the polluters kept increasing theirs! Thus, the Acts levelled the playing field so that everyone in the scenario benefitted by reducing emissions – in the form of forcing competitors into similar costs, as well as the benefits to health care and environmental health that are incredibly hard to calculate (since they are, after all, so diffuse).

Anyways, I've forgotten my original point. I've had a couple delicious Unibroue Maudite beers, so I'm loquacious to a fault at this point. Hopefully I've made some sort of sense. Or not.

greg
I'm sorry...but its just not good enough to say that trial and error is going to fix this problem....especially when you're talking about massive tax hikes and drastically changing people's lifestyles.

We also never tried to say that those who care should do more to fix the problem. You completely missed that one.



I will tell you this though. The answer to this problem lies in science, not in politics. Taxes won't do it. Neither will limiting people's right to buy energy. The answer will lie in the long term in evolving technologies, and (if need be) the short term by a (any) technique as mentioned by Uncle S. If it does not lie in either of those places then we have no viable solutions.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 04:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm sorry...but its just not good enough to say that trial and error is going to fix this problem....especially when you're talking about massive tax hikes and drastically changing people's lifestyles.

We also never tried to say that those who care should do more to fix the problem. You completely missed that one.



I will tell you this though. The answer to this problem lies in science, not in politics. Taxes won't do it. Neither will limiting people's right to buy energy. The answer will lie in the long term in evolving technologies, and (if need be) the short term by a (any) technique as mentioned by Uncle S. If it does not lie in either of those places then we have no viable solutions.
Science has no power to do anything. Science is merely knowledge. If we're unwilling to use what we learn, that's our mistake.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 04:37 AM
 
I think his point is right on. If this is something that needs to be addressed then it is scientific advancements that need to address it, not social engineering, which I think is his point.

It's amazing how so many "problems" get addressed by taking more in taxes and imposing more restrictions. People are all too willing to give up more of their money and freedoms on the latest "looming catastrophe." It has never been and never will be the best solution.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 04:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I think his point is right on. If this is something that needs to be addressed then it is scientific advancements that need to address it, not social engineering, which I think is his point.

It's amazing how so many "problems" get addressed by taking more in taxes and imposing more restrictions. People are all too willing to give up more of their money and freedoms on the latest "looming catastrophe." It has never been and never will be the best solution.
yeah
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 04:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Science has no power to do anything. Science is merely knowledge. If we're unwilling to use what we learn, that's our mistake.
You're exactly right.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Unfortunately, I finished school in December and am out in the "real world"; plus I'm also doing a distance course on historical geology which is taking up a fair bit of my time.
You seem to have time enough to be half-drunk every other post


Having said that, I don't feel that the onus of proof should be on "us" for some of the basic demands he listed.
If you're the one demanding action by every person on earth, I don't see why the onus would not be on you, for everything. That's a pretty strong demand, and it warrants a pretty strong demonstration of proof.

When was the last time every person on earth cooperated on anything? I don't think it's ever happened before. Do you realize how optimistic you're being? I'm not saying this because I personally don't want to sacrifice; I'm saying it because I don't want to make sacrifices that are fundamentally futile because those leading the movement haven't thought things through. As you said, we may only have one shot at this, so putting our resources into a plan that is inane isn't somthing I'd consider a good idea.

Forcing us to "prove" (again, a word that one will probably never find in a scientific article) that global warming is happening, is caused by humans or that it will have certain effects is simply ludicrous;
No. In order to convince every person on earth (or being generous, 95% of them), you have a higher burden of proof than you're used to. You personally are the segment of the population who's going to have to gather that argument from the data (since no one else is really going to have the combination of access, familiarity and desire to do it), and I'm telling you that you haven't done it yet. I'm not even convinced, and I want to be convinced.

However, most of the argument doesn't seem to be whether we can reverse the trend – from what I know, chemically speaking it does seem logical,
That's the higher burden of proof I'm talking about. If scientists aren't doing anything to verify that we can reverse the trend, they're not doing their jobs (if they think they have to influence policy). Any honest scientist will tell you that what "seems logical" is not good enough until it's been tested empirically.

Finally, the entire "global warming" movement suffers from Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons scenario. This is apparent in your view that
which seems to indicate that you think those who do care should take on the extra burden caused by those who don't care.
...failing the evidence you just told me they're unwilling or unable to gather to confirm their suspicions, yes I do.
This isn't such a strange idea. Where does the funding for climate science come from already? Grants. Donations. Those who care, taking on extra burden to benefit all.

Snow-i feels the same, as evidenced by his comment that general taxes on the public (meat, gas, etc.) are not the way to go.
I think taxes could work, but not as a deterrant. If we find a solution that can actually reverse the trend, rather than just slowing it by small amounts, support it with taxes. The basic science is mostly supported with taxes already anyway. Taxes are usually distributed to who will benefit from the revenue. If it's a tragedy of the commons and everyone will benefit, everyone should pay equally.

In other words, instead of a negative benefit being spread out over all people by one individual's profit motive (a la Hardin), this negative benefit is now concentrated on one segment, and the "cons" don't get a negative at all! Until there is some way to level the playing field – and that's usually with universal laws – you're asking one segment of society to lose profit at the expense of another segment gaining profit.
You're asking the car-driving segment to sacrifice when they only make up 14% of the overall greenhouse gas production (according to wikipedia). That's worse than an unlevel playing field because it won't even touch 86% of the problem.

would you expect those companies which advocated reducing emissions to try to "double reduce emissions" in order to make up for those who didn't want to reduce at all?
No, I would expect them to come up with a solution. "Extra reducing" and "regular reducing" are not enough. For example, we still have asthma and acid rain after the clean air act. If those problem were going to be the downfall of civilization (like climate change apparently is), the only way to stop them would be to find cures for asthma and acid rain, not by simply making slightly less of them.

Anyways, I've forgotten my original point. I've had a couple delicious Unibroue Maudite beers, so I'm loquacious to a fault at this point. Hopefully I've made some sort of sense. Or not.

greg
You've forgotten my point too. Solutions. Have you even considered this plankton idea? We dump tons and tons of nutrients away (in sewage), and we need tons and tons of nutrients for growing photosyntesizers.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I think his point is right on. If this is something that needs to be addressed then it is scientific advancements that need to address it, not social engineering, which I think is his point.
I completely disagree. I think change in our mindsets, the way we live, and the way we interact is essential. I don't know if there's a modern historical basis for new technology eliminating the problems caused by the old; generally, they often seem to just bring up new problems of their own. (Often it comes in the form of merely allowing more of a less-damaging product, thereby nullifying the effect. Doofy has also pointed out [although he doesn't have reliable proof from what I've seen] the fact that new technology requires more complex machinery, which as a whole may nullify the advantage over a more-polluting, less complex machine that is simpler to construct. I remember somewhere about him posting this about the Prius, claiming its manufacturing process is a "hidden emissions cost.")

As I've said before, I do believe that this is a mindset caused by our economic society, where "growth" is always regarded as the essential component of successful business. If a company doesn't grow, it might as well be dying as far as our society is concerned. This doesn't make any sense to me; looking at it from a world standpoint, it's clear that this will soon have to change.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
You seem to have time enough to be half-drunk every other post
Touché

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
If you're the one demanding action by every person on earth, I don't see why the onus would not be on you, for everything. That's a pretty strong demand, and it warrants a pretty strong demonstration of proof.
Ahhhh. My point was that those demands listed have already gone through this process of "pretty strong demonstration of proof"...that having to "prove" the basic tenets of an argument over and over again simply places one side at a huge clerical disadvantage. As you know, our current understanding is a 90-99% certainty of anthropogenic climate change; how much more of a "burden of proof" should be required?? That's probably more than what we require of our courts of law. I've also noted before that America as a whole seemed to think Iraq was worth putting billions/trillions into while their leader publicly advocated a "1% Doctrine." I've embarrassed eBuddy in the past by pointing out that he publicly supported that doctrine on this board, but demanded "unequivocal proof" when it came to believing climate change/global warming. Such arguments don't make a lot of sense. Now, if you're talking about "whether our actions will result in x amount of change," yeah, I agree that more work is needed. But that wasn't what I had pointed out in the first place.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
That's the higher burden of proof I'm talking about. If scientists aren't doing anything to verify that we can reverse the trend, they're not doing their jobs (if they think they have to influence policy). Any honest scientist will tell you that what "seems logical" is not good enough until it's been tested empirically.
I think you should probably recognize what I'm going to say here. You're "proving" my argument right back to me. This is global science; we can't very well test empirically without inherently taking some global-level action. What you've just said is the Catch-22 I already pointed out: where no action is promised until answers are given which may be almost impossible to give until action is taken.

Arguments on expense are irrelevant at this point. The International Space Station is a $110-billion-dollar playtoy in space that NASA plans to shut down the moment it's completed, last time I checked. It has little known scientific value besides that of a technological marvel. We can continue down this path for the past 475 years, since the first inception of Big Science at Tycho Brahe's Uraniborg; it's huge, it's expensive, and it takes a lot of people. I look at the $110 billion floating beautifully up in the sky, or that new particle accelerator over in Europe, or the trillions of dollars that will be sunk into Iraq, and ask "where's the argument against funding global warming measures again?"

You're asking the car-driving segment to sacrifice when they only make up 14% of the overall greenhouse gas production (according to wikipedia). That's worse than an unlevel playing field because it won't even touch 86% of the problem.
Well, no, this is a bit of a generalization on your part, I think you'd agree. Cars are only one measure of emissions reduction, but it is one that is fairly easy to change. It's also easy to sensationalize in the media, so it gets lots of attention. There are plenty others: reducing our water usage (I have a couple bricks in my toilet bowl, very easy), changing our power sources, etc. etc. etc. The new regulations imposed by Kyoto seem to clearly indicate that your focus on cars probably isn't warranted. (Of course, governments also like to push this route because it allows industry to stay unchanged, and effectively passes the burden onto the taxpayer.)

No, I would expect them to come up with a solution. "Extra reducing" and "regular reducing" are not enough. For example, we still have asthma and acid rain after the clean air act. If those problem were going to be the downfall of civilization (like climate change apparently is), the only way to stop them would be to find cures for asthma and acid rain, not by simply making slightly less of them.
Your acid rain example doesn't hold much water: it's certainly much better now than it would have been without change. Our population has expanded hugely since that time, and so has our factories. We reduce, and then make up for it by increasing our reduces.

Your example is also the same as mine. I was using "reducing" in metaphorical terms; that could mean actually reducing, or coming up with solutions to the problem, ie. r&d funding is also "reducing." The bottom line is, you are expecting them to reduce their profits by giving a competitive advantage to their, uhh, competitors. It simply isn't realistic.

You've forgotten my point too. Solutions. Have you even considered this plankton idea? We dump tons and tons of nutrients away (in sewage), and we need tons and tons of nutrients for growing photosyntesizers.
It happens, when the Maudite starts to flow. Damn good beer, I'm telling you.

I haven't looked at your idea fully. To be honest, it's only relatively recently, as the non-global-warming-crowd has switched from the "we aren't causing it" to the "we can't change it anyway" argument, that the Solutions debate has arisen. Of course, education follows after, so it hasn't been something that I studied much in school.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I completely disagree. I think change in our mindsets, the way we live, and the way we interact is essential. I don't know if there's a modern historical basis for new technology eliminating the problems caused by the old; generally, they often seem to just bring up new problems of their own. (Often it comes in the form of merely allowing more of a less-damaging product, thereby nullifying the effect. Doofy has also pointed out [although he doesn't have reliable proof from what I've seen] the fact that new technology requires more complex machinery, which as a whole may nullify the advantage over a more-polluting, less complex machine that is simpler to construct. I remember somewhere about him posting this about the Prius, claiming its manufacturing process is a "hidden emissions cost.")
But don't you see? People don't want to change their mindsets. They want to fix the problem that is presented to us today. You are advocating a complete change in the way all people think with no evidence that its going to have a discernable effect.

The thing is...you can't make people think like you. You would be much better off trying to find a solution that works for everyone, then finding a solution that works for you then forcing everyone to be like you.

Ahhhh. My point was that those demands listed have already gone through this process of "pretty strong demonstration of proof"...that having to "prove" the basic tenets of an argument over and over again simply places one side at a huge clerical disadvantage. As you know, our current understanding is a 90-99% certainty of anthropogenic climate change; how much more of a "burden of proof" should be required?? That's probably more than what we require of our courts of law. I've also noted before that America as a whole seemed to think Iraq was worth putting billions/trillions into while their leader publicly advocated a "1% Doctrine." I've embarrassed eBuddy in the past by pointing out that he publicly supported that doctrine on this board, but demanded "unequivocal proof" when it came to believing climate change/global warming. Such arguments don't make a lot of sense. Now, if you're talking about "whether our actions will result in x amount of change," yeah, I agree that more work is needed. But that wasn't what I had pointed out in the first place.
Again, you've missed our point. We aren't interested in proving/disproving global warming.

For you to make us change you must provide sufficient proof that doing so will make a difference. That is the proof you must provide. Thats the burden that lies on the proponets calling for change

I think you should probably recognize what I'm going to say here. You're "proving" my argument right back to me. This is global science; we can't very well test empirically without inherently taking some global-level action. What you've just said is the Catch-22 I already pointed out: where no action is promised until answers are given which may be almost impossible to give until action is taken.
And what grounds are you basing this assumption on? I see no reason why modern science could not come up with solutions prior to implementing them globally.

Arguments on expense are irrelevant at this point. The International Space Station is a $110-billion-dollar playtoy in space that NASA plans to shut down the moment it's completed, last time I checked. It has little known scientific value besides that of a technological marvel. We can continue down this path for the past 475 years, since the first inception of Big Science at Tycho Brahe's Uraniborg; it's huge, it's expensive, and it takes a lot of people. I look at the $110 billion floating beautifully up in the sky, or that new particle accelerator over in Europe, or the trillions of dollars that will be sunk into Iraq, and ask "where's the argument against funding global warming measures again?"
These modern playtoys provide your beloved science with alot of the knowledge that we have today. Just because these are worthwhile expendatures doesn't mean you can tax the public more on a whim. These projects have specific goals and have strong evidence that says they can reach these goals. Thats the part missing from your argument. You have no evidence that the goal can be reached by the means you are proposing.

Well, no, this is a bit of a generalization on your part, I think you'd agree. Cars are only one measure of emissions reduction, but it is one that is fairly easy to change. It's also easy to sensationalize in the media, so it gets lots of attention. There are plenty others: reducing our water usage (I have a couple bricks in my toilet bowl, very easy), changing our power sources, etc. etc. etc. The new regulations imposed by Kyoto seem to clearly indicate that your focus on cars probably isn't warranted. (Of course, governments also like to push this route because it allows industry to stay unchanged, and effectively passes the burden onto the taxpayer.)
Fairly easy to change? Perhaps for you. For me however, it is not so simple. Nor for my father, nor for my mother, nor for the majority of the people I know. Again, you can't make everyong like you.

Your acid rain example doesn't hold much water: it's certainly much better now than it would have been without change. Our population has expanded hugely since that time, and so has our factories. We reduce, and then make up for it by increasing our reduces.
And you propose doing what to reduce even further? Open human hunting season?

Your example is also the same as mine. I was using "reducing" in metaphorical terms; that could mean actually reducing, or coming up with solutions to the problem, ie. r&d funding is also "reducing." The bottom line is, you are expecting them to reduce their profits by giving a competitive advantage to their, uhh, competitors. It simply isn't realistic.
I don't think i follow your logic here. Could you explain that one to me?

It happens, when the Maudite starts to flow. Damn good beer, I'm telling you.

I haven't looked at your idea fully. To be honest, it's only relatively recently, as the non-global-warming-crowd has switched from the "we aren't causing it" to the "we can't change it anyway" argument, that the Solutions debate has arisen. Of course, education follows after, so it hasn't been something that I studied much in school.

greg
When did we say we can't fix it?? We're just saying that what you propose isn't going to fix it. This is an issue for science to overcome, not philosophy or politics. That is our point. We want to fix the problem.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2007, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...that having to "prove" the basic tenets of an argument over and over again simply places one side at a huge clerical disadvantage.
You are trying to convince the entire world to make significant daily sacrifices. You should be at a huge disadvantage. You should be darn sure of your conclusion, and you should thank your lucky stars for every repetition less than 3 billion odd motorists whose minds you desire to change.

Of course, the causes have been conceded in this thread. Your reading comprehension doesn't inspire confidence in your conclusions.

As you know, our current understanding is a 90-99% certainty of anthropogenic climate change; how much more of a "burden of proof" should be required??
Well the general standard for scientific conclusions is 95%, and most studies have at least some results that are 99.9% (p = 0.001). And as we've discussed before, scientific conclusions are "free" in a public policy sense, and this issue is far from "free." So the "90-99%" is pretty weak, in my opinion. Since you brought it up.

That's probably more than what we require of our courts of law.
Do you honestly believe that? "90-99%" is "beyond reasonable doubt?" I don't.

I've also noted before that America as a whole seemed to think Iraq was worth putting billions/trillions into while their leader publicly advocated a "1% Doctrine."
I certainly never supported the war, but to compare "play money" tax costs to real world quality-of-life personal sacrifices is way out of line. Citizens don't see the cost of Iraq, it gets laundered through the magic of deficit spending. If you want to finance a grand plan for reducing greenhouse gases from the bottomless pit of tax revenue, I'm all for it. In fact that's what I've been arguing for. Even if you want to use that money to reimburse people for not driving their cars, that's a load better than trying to convince everyone to stop driving out of personal conviction. The latter just simply will not work.

Now, if you're talking about "whether our actions will result in x amount of change," yeah, I agree that more work is needed.
Uh-huh.


I think you should probably recognize what I'm going to say here. You're "proving" my argument right back to me. This is global science; we can't very well test empirically without inherently taking some global-level action. What you've just said is the Catch-22 I already pointed out: where no action is promised until answers are given which may be almost impossible to give until action is taken.
Exactly. You (and your scientific support) are incapable (or perhaps uninterested) of supplying the support you need for the methods you propose. That's why I keep saying it's a method that simply won't work.

I look at the $110 billion floating beautifully up in the sky, or that new particle accelerator over in Europe, or the trillions of dollars that will be sunk into Iraq, and ask "where's the argument against funding global warming measures again?"
Um, that's what I've been saying! Make some GW measures that run on funding, not on "everyone trying real hard" and you might get somewhere. You've got plenty of funding. Even if taxes won't do it (and I'm positive they will), Richard Branson, Al Gore, George Clooney and 1000s of other eco-evangelists will pick up the slack.

Cars are only one measure of emissions reduction, but it is one that is fairly easy to change.
Easy to change? No. I'd say cars are the hardest component to change. They are the most numerous, the most commodified, and the most technologically challenging (they have all the requirements of stationary power plants, but they also have to go from 0-60 in 6 seconds, on demand).

I haven't looked at your idea fully. To be honest, it's only relatively recently, as the non-global-warming-crowd has switched from the "we aren't causing it" to the "we can't change it anyway" argument, that the Solutions debate has arisen.
This is 100% of the problem your side has. You jumped the gun on raising a stink before you'd even explored solutions. Even if there was no resistance to the idea of global warming, all you can hope for is for society to answer you "ok, I believe. Now what?" At which point you look like a bunch of dullards, "I never thought about that."

Explore the solutions. If you're in a car rolling down a hill and the only way you can think of to stop yourself is by easing up on the gas, you're not trying hard enough.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 02:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You are trying to convince the entire world to make significant daily sacrifices. You should be at a huge disadvantage. You should be darn sure of your conclusion, and you should thank your lucky stars for every repetition less than 3 billion odd motorists whose minds you desire to change.

Of course, the causes have been conceded in this thread. Your reading comprehension doesn't inspire confidence in your conclusions.
Unfortunately it is your comprehension which is under question. I was responding to Snow-i's list of demands, and highlighted
Prove that man is the dominant cause
Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that only recently (ie. within the last year) has any acceptance of this caught on amongst the anti-global-warmers.


Do you honestly believe that? "90-99%" is "beyond reasonable doubt?" I don't.
I don't know how much you've been to court, but in practice I think many lawyers would be more than happy with that range, especially 99%. It's also worth noting that civil cases are only on a balance of probabilities (although that's neither here nor there).


I certainly never supported the war, but to compare "play money" tax costs to real world quality-of-life personal sacrifices is way out of line. Citizens don't see the cost of Iraq, it gets laundered through the magic of deficit spending. If you want to finance a grand plan for reducing greenhouse gases from the bottomless pit of tax revenue, I'm all for it. In fact that's what I've been arguing for. Even if you want to use that money to reimburse people for not driving their cars, that's a load better than trying to convince everyone to stop driving out of personal conviction. The latter just simply will not work.
As I've stated, I believe public (ie. government) money is essential in order to move towards a solution on the issue.

Exactly. You (and your scientific support) are incapable (or perhaps uninterested) of supplying the support you need for the methods you propose. That's why I keep saying it's a method that simply won't work.
I'll say again, this is "global science." Like large-scale environmental science, it is enormously difficult to design controlled experiments because of the variables involved. Scaled-down experiments and tests are commonplace, but they are discredited because of this very fact. Our current modeling systems have been proven to be relatively accurate, but they are discredited because there is a chance they will not be so accurate at some point in the future. As I've stated, your demands are very difficult: global science entails global experiment, or at least large funds to design and test alternate methods. But most of those arguing are against such large costs (eg. Snow-i is against taxation on the issue). You say that this is a big problem, and I say that's exactly what I'm saying, and why we're debating in the first place.


Um, that's what I've been saying! Make some GW measures that run on funding, not on "everyone trying real hard" and you might get somewhere. You've got plenty of funding. Even if taxes won't do it (and I'm positive they will), Richard Branson, Al Gore, George Clooney and 1000s of other eco-evangelists will pick up the slack.
Agreed to some extent. Private donations, however, have not been able to fund mainstream big science since the early 20th century. Government will need to get involved. As I already stated however, it is my personal belief that these changes will entail that the general populace will eventually have to "try real hard."

Easy to change? No. I'd say cars are the hardest component to change. They are the most numerous, the most commodified, and the most technologically challenging (they have all the requirements of stationary power plants, but they also have to go from 0-60 in 6 seconds, on demand).
This is a combination of North American-centredness and, again, technology implementation. The rest of the world far and away leads North American auto makers in changing cars; the NA companies have considerable historical momentum towards maintaining a status quo and is obviously incredibly resistant to change. (An obvious point one analyst recent made was that if American auto makers didn't enjoy the remarkable nationalist support of its populace, they would probably no longer exist in their current forms.) New technology does seem to indicate a more emissions-oriented direction in general, however. I still don't see what this has to do with your comment about cars, however; regardless of how many there are, the very fact that they are so "commodified" and have an extraordinarily quick turnover rate means they can be changed relatively quickly and painlessly.

This is 100% of the problem your side has. You jumped the gun on raising a stink before you'd even explored solutions. Even if there was no resistance to the idea of global warming, all you can hope for is for society to answer you "ok, I believe. Now what?" At which point you look like a bunch of dullards, "I never thought about that."

Explore the solutions. If you're in a car rolling down a hill and the only way you can think of to stop yourself is by easing up on the gas, you're not trying hard enough.
I don't see how I represent a "side"; I'm a recently graduated student who studied biology and environmental science for a couple years. I like to think I know a little more than average about the debate, but I hardly qualify as a "side." That's what professionals are for, last time I checked.

On top of this, the sheer amount of knowledge needed to argue the subject effectively means there will be a significant lag time between the science and public knowledge. Given this, a "one step at a time" approach seems reasonable. It took long enough to even convince people that global warming was real; it took more years to convince them humans are the cause (and that one still isn't fully won). There's only so far we can plan in advance; by your reasoning, we would've needed to be planning solutions back when the debate was rolling in the early 1990s. There simply wasn't (and still isn't) the public support to fund large-scale research and study on the issue. They're getting used to the idea; maybe it'll be a bit before they get blasted with the next earth-shaking idea.....


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And what grounds are you basing this assumption on? I see no reason why modern science could not come up with solutions prior to implementing them globally.
Oh they are, slowly but surely, but it's a difficult process. This requires funds – which you do not believe should be disbursed because it's a waste of taxpayer's money. Again, Catch-22. Furthermore, I see no evidence that an experiment can be designed which says "here you go, if we all switch to Prius' and our emissions go down by x, y and z will happen." It's probably impossible. Thus you have the nature of global science.

These modern playtoys provide your beloved science with alot of the knowledge that we have today. Just because these are worthwhile expendatures doesn't mean you can tax the public more on a whim. These projects have specific goals and have strong evidence that says they can reach these goals. Thats the part missing from your argument. You have no evidence that the goal can be reached by the means you are proposing.
Nonsense. You know little about the history of science. Modern science since the mid-1900s has spent stagging amounts of money on entirely worthless projects which have few goals and little to no results. The International Space Station has contributed pretty much zero to our scientific knowledge. Billions upon billions of dollars have been directed at high-powered telescopes which take better and better and "more prettier" pictures of the universe, for cryin' out loud. Particle accelerators have produced stagnant results for decades but billions have still been allocated.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there. Just pointing it out.

I don't think i follow your logic here. Could you explain that one to me?
1. Read the Tragedy of the Commons scenario.
2. Then apply this to global emissions, ie. individuals benefit a certain amount by freely emitting, but since the emissions' harm is spread out over the entire population, the benefit received is greater than the harm.
3. Now factor in an onus upon a certain segment to try and reduce this harm to the entire population. As you can see, it doesn't work. You are putting that segment at an escalating disadvantage by demanding they reduce their own profit towards this goal, while the rest of the population is free to keep increasing their emissions to increase their profit.

When did we say we can't fix it?? We're just saying that what you propose isn't going to fix it. This is an issue for science to overcome, not philosophy or politics. That is our point. We want to fix the problem.
How will it not fix the problem? We have increased emissions by a factor of x; according to our current understanding, decreasing emissions by a factor of x should "fix it."

I think a more accurate/relevant question is "will spending y dollars on decreasing emissions by a factor of x be worth the cost of having emissions at their current x levels."

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Mar 7, 2007 at 10:11 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 02:31 AM
 
And I'll just note, this is getting exhausting. I just spent an hour writing that post (in between sips of Maudite, of course). Jebus, someone give a guy a hand here.....

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And I'll just note, this is getting exhausting. I just spent an hour writing that post (in between sips of Maudite, of course). Jebus, someone give a guy a hand here.....

greg
I haven't read such drivel in a long time. Even in these illustrious threads. Sober up!
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
In 10, 20, even 50 years from now, things will be much the same as they are now with regards to the environment, and hopefully those puritanical fear mongers who predicted global meltdown will look back and realize that they misused science to reach pre-determined conclusions which coalesce nicely with their political and ideological goals, much like the corrupt dogmatic clergy of old.
Undoubtedly this statement is based on your own, extensive climatology background, right?
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
I haven't read such drivel in a long time. Even in these illustrious threads. Sober up!
Thanks for the constructive addition to this thread. Your ability to logically point out the flaws in your opponents' arguments and respond with your own rebuttals is, I'm sure, warmly welcomed.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Unfortunately it is your comprehension which is under question. I was responding to Snow-i's list of demands, and highlighted
1. you replied to me, not him
2. he conceded that point 17 hours before your post

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that only recently (ie. within the last year) has any acceptance of this caught on amongst the anti-global-warmers.
You don't need your opponents' acceptance before you start thinking about what to do next.

As I've stated, I believe public (ie. government) money is essential in order to move towards a solution on the issue.
But you keep saying you haven't even considered solutions, because you're mired in the issue of causes. You're not going to get public money for solutions if you never consider any possible solutions.

I'll say again, this is "global science." Like large-scale environmental science, it is enormously difficult to design controlled experiments because of the variables involved.
"I'd like to prove this to you, but it's just too difficult. So just take my word on it."

That garners about as much sympathy as: "I'd like to prove to you that you should join my new religion and sign over all your earthly possessions to me, but it's just too difficult...yadda yadda yadda."

Remember the title of this thread? The whole point used to be your side saying "no, really, it's about the evidence." Now it seems to be "there is no evidence, because evidence of this can't be gathered in today's world." That's quite a big difference.

As I already stated however, it is my personal belief that these changes will entail that the general populace will eventually have to "try real hard."
A-ha. So this is really about faith afterall, eh?

The rest of the world far and away leads North American auto makers in changing cars;
You'll have to forgive me, because I live in Seattle I really don't see all that many American cars on the road. Do those foreign cars somehow magically lose their advancements when they cross the US border? Or are you saying the foreign cars I see all over my city are the target; everyone should be more like Seattle (import), and as for us Seattlites we've gotten to the finish line and can stop worrying about improving the car situation?

I don't see how I represent a "side";
Oh please, if you've made an argument, you're on a side. Relax.

I'm a recently graduated student who studied biology and environmental science for a couple years. I like to think I know a little more than average about the debate, but I hardly qualify as a "side." That's what professionals are for, last time I checked.
Oh double please, you've always presented yourself as an expert on this topic (at least by the standards of internet message boards). You have (or had) daily access to the primary literature, and you had a strong interest in defending it.

What are you doing now, btw? I thought you said law school or something once.

On top of this, the sheer amount of knowledge needed to argue the subject effectively means there will be a significant lag time between the science and public knowledge. Given this, a "one step at a time" approach seems reasonable.
No, that's completely backwards. The longer the process takes, the more you have to plan ahead.

Oh they are, slowly but surely, but it's a difficult process. This requires funds – which you do not believe should be disbursed because it's a waste of taxpayer's money.
He didn't say it was a waste of funds, he only ever objected to taxation as a means of influencing people's behavior (the potential "cars and beef" tax).

As the ISS illustrates, we can basically print play money and use it for public projects without ever having to make good on it.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that an experiment can be designed which says "here you go, if we all switch to Prius' and our emissions go down by x, y and z will happen."
Then you're blind. I remember people saying there was a significant drop in CO2 (or temp? I wasn't paying attention) after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded. You ought to be able to (a) quantify that effect, and (b) take a small area and switch things over to hybrid cars and measure the effect of that.

That's for cars (which I don't think is a solution by itself). Other solutions experiments include: space (shade potential from artificial dust cloud or other object), biology (extra photosynthesis from seeding with various things), chemistry (I'm not good at chemistry, but catalytic converters must do something good), etc. There are loads of things that can be followed up on if you just stop obsessing over your preconceived "everyone try real hard" paradigm.

Billions upon billions of dollars have been directed at high-powered telescopes which take better and better and "more prettier" pictures of the universe, for cryin' out loud.
Imaging within the solar system has a lot to tell us about climate science. Didn't they just claim to quantify the temperature flux on pluto?


How will it not fix the problem? We have increased emissions by a factor of x; according to our current understanding, decreasing emissions by a factor of x should "fix it."
1. Feed-forward effects
2. Long ecological half-life

These aren't things I necessarily believe, but these are things strongly argued by your side (or if you prefer "your side"). If you want people to blindly accept your above reasoning, you have to expect them to accept these things too, and since these things invalidate your reasoning....make of that what you will.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2007, 08:16 PM
 
Nobody wants to challange this?

Hmm.....so even if all the other global warming threads are conceded to the GW supporters they have no solutions, so at this point in time they are all moot?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2007, 09:54 PM
 
I've enjoyed the debate and it was my intent to search the university's online database for some more information, but I've gotten completely bogged down with all the other work I've got to do here. I wish someone else would reply, but whenever I get some free time I'll see what I can come up with.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2007, 11:38 PM
 
Looking forward to it!
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 10:31 PM
 
Indeed this is a time-consuming debate.

I feel like in this thread we are actually making progress towards understanding each other's views though.

I too, look forward to your responses
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 01:19 AM
 
I feel bad for not continuing this, but at the moment I've written off all in-depth debate around this place. I'm putting in lots of overtime at my new job to pay off the bills, I'm trying to get my ass in gear for a night course I'm doing, I'm doing lots of renovating/cleaning of my apartment after months of neglect and in anticipation of a girlfriend visit in a couple weeks, and on top of it all my sister sent me a couple Ernest Hemingway books for my birthday. So now I'm alternating between The Earth Through Time's historical geology and A Farewell to Arms' awesomeness.

I get smacked for linking to articles and quoting without adding my own comments apparently, but there's been a couple Globe and Mail (one of Canada's better newspapers imo) articles recently on this subject, especially on the debate between using technology as geoengineering and just reducing our emissions flat-out.

Climate-change cures may be worse than the disease
David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because “we've been politically weak-kneed.”
...
However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger, said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The U.S. government, which spends about $2-billion on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that (geoengineering),” Mr. Marburger said. “The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide.”
You may need to register, which is free, quick and painless last I checked. There was also a lengthy, 4-page article dealing with some of the geoengineering methods a while back, but I can't find it now.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Mar 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason: Fixinated™ teh link)
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 11:14 AM
 
Your link is broken.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 12:02 PM
 
Oops, my bad, it's good now.

I found another article, but it requires paid access so I won't abuse my access and quote it all (not that I could anyway). It's called "Going to extremes to fight global warming" by ANNE McILROY if anyone's interested; maybe it's on Google or something. I still can't find the 4-page one I was talking about; no idea where it disappeared to.

I think the bottom line is, for most scientists the sheer magnitude and scale of these geoengineering efforts leaves some serious questions about their unintended environmental consequences. Many large-scale efforts to alter or change our environment via chemical and/or "scientific" methods have had significant and long-term deleterious effects; I doubt anyone is rushing to be responsible for such potentially dangerous projects right yet.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 01:19 PM
 
It sounds from that article like they are afraid to even investigate these alternatives, based solely on their "gut feeling" that a silver bullet solution "always" backfires. That's pretty much exactly what I was complaining about. Also I don't see how any sort of large artificial photosynthesis campaign qualifies as "geoengineering."
Many large-scale efforts to alter or change our environment via chemical and/or "scientific" methods have had significant and long-term deleterious effects
Such as?




Lastly, let's not forget that humans might not be the cause of global warming afterall, in which case the "everyone try real hard" cure might be worse than the disease, too. I still say if you're worried about the temperature, you're better off trying to change the temperature directly.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,