Global warming could cost billions

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]341573[/snapback]</div>

After you do the same for the pro GW literature.

BTW, when was that paper written? I couldn't find a date more recent than 1993 (except for a 2020 prediction). All of his anecdotes date from about 1989. That was quite a while ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 06:15 PM) [snapback]341573[/snapback]</div>

I may be way off here, but you have not convinced me yet you are completely immune to rational thought. So I'll make a deal with you: You skim through this page of realclimate.org -- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/ -- which is a website written by scientists in climatology for technically minded laypeople -- and I'll read Cato.

I do have a question for you, while I am at it: what was the position of the premier scientific organizations in the US to the supposed up and coming catastrophes that never happened you listed ? Start with the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), and then the AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science.

The POINT of GW and peer reviewed articles is that very few scientists, let alone off the street people like you, have the education, knowledge and intellect to make informed conclusions regarding the science of GW. Ignore politicians, ignore pastors, ignore ideologists.

Read people who know Wth they are talking about. Or remain an ideological idiot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 31 2006, 02:26 PM) [snapback]341576[/snapback]</div>

I was exerting myself to remain polite in the face of his insults.

* * *

As for the whole "debate" over global warming, what we have here is an example of corporations relying on the notion of "deniability." All the science and all the evidence demonstrates that human activity is accelerating global warming, but the population at large is scientifically illiterate, and as long as the corporations can present an argument that a segment of the population accepts, they can deny responsibility.

Deniability does not rely on evidence or fact. It relies on argument that sounds good. And that is a subjective criterion.

The posters above who either deny global warming or deny that a change in human activity could affect it, are demonstrating how effective is the corporate strategy. And as long as the corporations can maintain deniability, they can continue business as usual. The corporate decision-makers believe the collapse will not come in their lifetimes, so they are happy to continue living high on the hog for as long as the body politick will allow them to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 31 2006, 06:36 PM) [snapback]341603[/snapback]</div>

So, if I don't agree with your opinion, I am completely immune from rational thought. Does that apply with all your conclusions and opinions, or just Global Warming? Nice comeback. Very mature...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 31 2006, 06:36 PM) [snapback]341603[/snapback]</div>

I have gone through their web pages and I do find many of their arguments very convincing. But when I read the papers and documents presented by scientists mentioned in my previous posts, well, in my opinion that tips the scales to the thought that manmade Global Warming is simply a fallacy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 31 2006, 06:36 PM) [snapback]341603[/snapback]</div>

Really, you can't make an informed decision yourself? So we should just say "BAAHHHH" and do whatever experts and scientists tell us???... I'll make my own assumptions and decisions, thank you. And BTW, politicians and especially pastors are of the type of whom I am always wary. Ideologists???



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 31 2006, 06:36 PM) [snapback]341603[/snapback]</div>

Implied profanity and name calling shows your desperation. Let's keep the profanity and the name calling for the kids, OK?

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 05:59 PM) [snapback]341641[/snapback]</div>

So just to clarify... what you're saying is that the articles on RealClimate were convincing but then you read these other papers and they presented arguments that to you refuted the previous articles and show conclusively that all of the research suggesting anthropogenic climate change is invalid?

 

Of course not, at least in regards to GW. But then, perhaps we have different notions of what *informed* opinion means.

I have less than a BSc in each of Chemistry, Physics, and Maths, and essentially no education in Enviromental Science, although I did read a primer on Earth atmosphere physics a couple of years ago to better follow the monographs at realclimate.org, not to delude myself into thinking that all of a sudden I am capable of estimating the accuracy of climate models, or critiquing any of the multiple PhD level sciences that go into them.

Thinking so would be stupid, to put it mildly. I *do* have strong personal opinions what POLITICAL steps should be taken, since those reflect how I want to live, what kind of Earth I want to leave for my children, and what kind of risks I am willing to take by delaying making GW decisions etc -- but the science is without a doubt best left to the experts.

An opinion on a scientific matter does not a scientific opinion make. Expertise is required. If you do not have it, seek out people that do.

Hint: you will not find expert scientific opinion on political websites like Cato. There you will find opinions on scientific questions set by ideological filters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 31 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]341658[/snapback]</div>

No, not conclusively, but to a less standard, but shall I say convincingly. I don't think anyone can say beyond a shadow of doubt (conclusively) that man alone can or cannot affect climate change on his own accord.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Ahh .. that line of poppycock.

Greater than (1 - (1 in 10^x)) percent would be convincing, if X = ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]341678[/snapback]</div>

So you're taking the criminal law version of guilty over the civil law variety. So anything short of 100% proof means that it's a fallacy? In that case everything is a fallacy.

For posterity, here's a bit about Richard Lindzen that discusses many of the points that the Cato article talks about.

 

Taken from realclimate.org:

Scientific institutions that hold concensus views that manmade global warming is a real threat:

NASA GISS http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
IPCC http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
NAS http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
SOCC http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
EPA http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....tent/index.html
UK RS http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
AGU http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html
NCAR http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
AMS http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
CMOS http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, atmosphere agrees that the evidence says the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2.

See also this joint statement endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct, 05:15 PM) [snapback]341573[/snapback]</div>

It doesn't take much research to figure out that report is at least 10 years old, was paid for by OPEC, and has already been thoroughly discredited.

 

viking31:

I repeat my earlier question. Please respond:

What if you are wrong. Are you prepared for the consequences of your decision for your children? If the "experts" are right and we do nothing they are screwed. But if the "experts" are wrong but we still react, the consequences are we spent some money to improve the environment for our children. viking31, are you honestly prepared to accept the possible scenario that we are screwed? If not why do you hold to your views so tightly?

This subject isn't about whether anyone is right or wrong. IT COMES DOWN TO SURVIVAL. If you understand this then why would anyone argue to so quickly dismiss the possibility that Global Warming is a real threat to our children's survival?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 31 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]341691[/snapback]</div>

You could properly infer from my post that this is the case. A computer operating on IF, THEN, ELSE logic would come to that conclusion. But human decisions are often based on a myriad of factors and not just pure logic. If we all thought just logically, there would be no diversity, artistic expression, good or evil, emotions... It is what makes us different and unique from machines. Sure, artificial intelligence has been developed in computers to some extent, but presently it is primitive at best, still not even close to the likes of fictional computer HAL which was cast as a cold, calculating, 100% logically thinking machine.

I have arrived at my conclusions based on my own research and weighing the points put forward by both parties. If the evidence in the future points more convincingly to manmade Global Warming then I will alter my position. Unitl then, I just don't think the numbers and the available empirical evidence regarding manmade Global Warming points to the disasters and temperature rises predicted.

Yes, I am aware that many more scientists support the idea of manmade Global Warming than those who do not. But that does not make either side right or wrong. The vast majority of humans on this planet "support" big oil (and "big coal" for that matter). You and I, and nearly everyone else spends a significant portion of their income on oil and coal. Electrical production and nearly all vehicles benefit these industries. BUT that too does not make them "right" or necessarily good stewards of our world.

And to go even further, if an oil company sponsors a paper debunking manmade Global Warming does that make the paper and its conclusions false? Suspect for sure. But false with misleading conclusions??

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 1 2006, 08:06 AM) [snapback]341861[/snapback]</div>

Actually, humans aren't capable of making purely logical decisions, at least not good ones. There must be an emotional component for humans to operate effectively. But that's another topic.

Many more scientists support anthro-GW because the evidence supports it. Every skeptic argument that I've encountered has a detailed convincing rebuttal based on the facts and evidence that have been collected. That doesn't make AGW unassailable but so far no one has been able to debunk it. Each of the papers that you have brought up, in this and other threads, have been disproved (where science is involved) or discredited (where the paper in question simply co-opts and distorts scientific findings, Marlo Lewis). The fact that oil companies fund studies is not, in itself, a bad thing. The fact that these documents contain distorted and misleading "information" is what's suspect. It has the effect of making it appear that the companies in question are trying to deceive the public at large for their own gain. That's not to say that the findings have to be negative. They do need to be good science and their conclusions need to be verifiable and validated by others. To my knowledge that's not what we're seeing.

 

If only. You are incapable of research -- which is what Lindzen does. You skim a lay article or two until you find one that seems to support your prejudices. 'Weighing the points' is PC correct-speak for "my opinion, ignorance be damned." Go ahead though, and prove me wrong: Discuss Lindzen's Iris hypothesis in the context of negative feedback and CO2 sensitivity. Then explain why mainstream's rebuttal of that notion is erred in your thoughtful, informed opinion.

HELLLOOOOO. It is irrelevant what /most/ people think; the point is what qualified experts in the field think. In that group, 100% (including Dr. Lindzen) do not dispute that manmade CO2 is warming the earth, but a vanishing small group (below five these days) are skeptical that the effect is disastrous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dreichla @ Oct 30 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]340613[/snapback]</div>

(Falling under the heading conditioned) Don't forget our society has begun to expect things to be handed to them. They would like our goverment to pay for their healthcare, pay for their welfare if they choose not to work, ect.

I still feel that if one can not work do to a bonafied physical or mental disability (only they should be able to have long term goverment assistance) the rest should be limited to 30 days of assistance once every cpl of years.
McDonalds is always hiring at $7-$9 an hour.... As for a selfish mind set I would tend to think everyone has a certain level of greed whether it's in the form of food or money or goods.

I grew up not having much, and then working for everything I got. I made 27k gross last year , I live at or just under my means have a cpl of comforts, hmm is that near poverty? I concidered myself middle class.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 1 2006, 12:07 AM) [snapback]341717[/snapback]</div>

This is exactly the point viking31. I believe GW is a threat becasue of the weight of evidence (partially presented above) that tells me it is. You post articles written by one individual. The post above represents a broad, worldwide scientific consensus built on the reasearch of literally thousands of scientists.

I have a MS in Environmental Engineering and I don't know squat about climatology. My "opinion" on GW is based on the collective knowledge and evidence put forth by those who do. I beleive to do otherwise is foolish.

Unfortunately, from where I sit, it appears that your opinions on GW are unsubstantiated and foolish.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Nov 1 2006, 12:31 AM) [snapback]341731[/snapback]</div>

Three60guy,

This is really the key point. Throw GW out the window, and consider how we might benefit from a program to reduce CO2 emissions. I think agressive research and development in the field of alternative and renewable energy (ARE) technology is fully justified for the following reasons:

-National security - our economy and way of life is completely "fueled" by foriegn resources. All our eggs are in somebody elses basket, and this is a risky path.
-Trade deficit - we send billions of $ to other nations every DAY, much of it for oil. The US cannot continue to be a leading economic power and we cannot maintain our standard of living indefinitely under this scenario.
-Terrorism - there can be no doubt that our thirst for oil puts money in the hands of terrorists
-Future economy - the US is not currently leading the world in ARE tech. Economic trends show that this is a rapidly growing market, with a very strong future outlook. Even if we dismiss GW, the rest of the world has not, and there is going to be a huge market for efficieincy technologies and altertives like solar, wind, and nuclear. We are not positioned to take advantage of this future economy, but we should be.

We should be giving tax breaks to alternative energy companies, not oil companies. We should raise CAFE standards (or actually, IMO tax fuel inefficient vehicles and use the tax $ to give rebates to those that buy fuel efficient vehicles). We should cut funding for space programs and use that money for ARE research. We should do all of these things and more in the absense of any threat of GW. Throw GW into the mix, and it just makes the case more compelling.

 

kingofgix:

Thank you for your comments concerning my question to viking31. You are certainly showing critical thinking and I totally agree with your views. Now if only viking31 would comment on my question to him. Hmmm. I wonder why I haven't heard from him. Could it be because I spoke the truth and he actually agrees with my views in that post? It is not unheard of to be swayed by a view other than your own. I have experienced that a number of times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

You raise excellent arguments to advance the cause of ARE technology. I 100% agree with every one of your points raised, except, you very last sentence. I believe if you push for ARE technology with GW as one of the reasons to advance ARE, then you immediately alienate a large percentage of the population who do not subscribe to manmade GW as presented by the pro GW community and they will simply use it as an excuse (justifiable in their minds) not to advance ARE.

Both sides of the aisle should and hopefully subscribe to your points mentioned with the exception to manmade GW. GW has become a poison pill for many who do not believe in manmade GW, and as divisive as abortion and gun control for example.

If I was King for the Day, I would push for ARE technology without mentioning GW. I think your other reasons mentioned alone are enough to convince the public and business to put more research and money into ARE.

Rick
#4 2006