Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating!
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82477 is a reply to message #82465] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 13:36   |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460fec68$1@linux...
> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
>> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
>> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen
>> AFTER the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a
>> fool to believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global
>> warming. Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>>
>> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the CO2
>> increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
>
> Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>
> In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
> the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are now
> contributing to the current climate change.
>
> If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some sense
> to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are drawing.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
We have two experts on climate here in Ottawa and both disagree vehemently
that CO2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are presently
experiencing. In fact one of them is a climate modelling expert and you
should hear him rail against the models that are being used by the Global
Warmists.
All I can say Jamie is we will have to agree to disagree but I'm keeping an
open mind albeit a skeptical one.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82478 is a reply to message #82465] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 15:55 |
Bill Lorentzen
Messages: 140
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
I read the article, and it indicated that CO2 did not trigger the warming,
but that it was part of the after/contributing effects.
I wish we would all work on positive actions we can take to handle the
sitaution instead of what we must give up and stop doing and make amends
for. People like to DO things not give up things. They like to CREATE, not
reduce, and frankly it's better for them. I would much rather go on an
excercise program than a low calory diet. Telling a person to stop doing
something is much less effective than showing them how to do something
different and better (and hopefully more fun).
Let's work on creative ways to make posotive changes in our world. One of
the articles posted above pointed out that we will have more food production
as an effect of global warming. Well that's a good thing, and we can
capitalize on it by helping to ameliorate famine, but that's never mentioned
by the blamers and takers-away.
Speaking very honestly, I would be OK with having fewer polar bears if the
millions of starving people on Earth could eat a healthy diet. But ideally
we can find solutions that don't harm anything, but actually SOLVE the
problem, not just reduce all the bad things we humans are doing to the poor
pitiful world. Let's get really smart and handle the hell out of it instead
of tiptoeing around being all careful and apologetic. Let's have some fun!
Bill L
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460fec68$1@linux...
> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
>> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
>> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen
>> AFTER the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a
>> fool to believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global
>> warming. Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>>
>> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the CO2
>> increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
>
> Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>
> In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
> the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are now
> contributing to the current climate change.
>
> If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some sense
> to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are drawing.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - scientists, schmientists . . . [message #82480 is a reply to message #82411] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 16:54 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK,
Here's a question . . . let's say for a second there really is a
scientific debate about the threat of global warming . . . what is wrong
with "Better safe than sorry?" Doesn't such common sense apply to the
health of the biosphere?
I hate to use the smoking analogy, but that's only because I didn't
think of it first. :) I think it's a good analogy. The idea that inhaling
tobacco smoke is unhealthy was around long before scientists in the '60s
apparently convinced the surgeon general (or somebody) that "smoking may be
hazardous to your health." Yeah, just maybe. My father quit immediately
when the warnings became official. My mother said, "Oh, nonsense," and died
of lung cancer in the late '70s. As a nurse on a medical unit, I see the
damage from smoking every day, yet there are still lots of people smoking,
and even people who deny the health hazards!
Smokers seem to come in two broad categories . . . those who say, "I
know I should quit, but I'm not ready," and those who say, "Ah, it's
bullshit. My grandpa smoked and lived to be 99!"
Now scientists have put a big sticker across petroleum, gas, and coal,
"Warning: burning of fossil fuels may be hazardous to life on earth." As
with cigarette smoking, some of us want to quit right away -- why take
chances? Others seem to be saying, well, maybe this is a problem, but I'm
not ready to quit. Others deny the warnings altogether and light up another
SUV.
The problem with the smoking analogy is that we can't just send the
global warming denyers outside, like we do with smokers. Do we really want
to wait and see if the predicted disasters happen and then go, "Damn, I
guess we should've done more sooner!" ? I like Portland as it is, and I
don't like the idea of it being on a little island off the coast of Oregon.
If there's even a chance that Al Gore's Inconvenience is True, I say let's
change things agressively NOW.
But come on . . . there's way more than a chance. Isn't this really
about resistance to change?
I have several friends who still smoke, including a couple of nurses.
None of these people denies the risks, but I really think underneath it all
they just don't give a crap. "Hey, everybody dies of something."
Is that what's really going on with the global warming "debate"? Is it
really just a battle between those who give a crap and those who don't? I
realize even planets don't last forever, but I think this one has a few good
millenia left in it if we can get it to lay off the cigarettes. :)
Sarah
"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message news:460ec4f9@linux...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>
> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global warming
> and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man who
> invented the internet...
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - scientists, schmientists . . . [message #82482 is a reply to message #82480] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 17:06 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They give a pretty compelling response to this in the movie.
Take a look.
DC
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>OK,
>
> Here's a question . . . let's say for a second there really is a
>scientific debate about the threat of global warming . . . what is wrong
>with "Better safe than sorry?" Doesn't such common sense apply to the
>health of the biosphere?
>
> I hate to use the smoking analogy, but that's only because I didn't
>think of it first. :) I think it's a good analogy. The idea that inhaling
>tobacco smoke is unhealthy was around long before scientists in the '60s
>apparently convinced the surgeon general (or somebody) that "smoking may
be
>hazardous to your health." Yeah, just maybe. My father quit immediately
>when the warnings became official. My mother said, "Oh, nonsense," and
died
>of lung cancer in the late '70s. As a nurse on a medical unit, I see the
>damage from smoking every day, yet there are still lots of people smoking,
>and even people who deny the health hazards!
>
> Smokers seem to come in two broad categories . . . those who say, "I
>know I should quit, but I'm not ready," and those who say, "Ah, it's
>bullshit. My grandpa smoked and lived to be 99!"
>
> Now scientists have put a big sticker across petroleum, gas, and coal,
>"Warning: burning of fossil fuels may be hazardous to life on earth." As
>with cigarette smoking, some of us want to quit right away -- why take
>chances? Others seem to be saying, well, maybe this is a problem, but I'm
>not ready to quit. Others deny the warnings altogether and light up another
>SUV.
>
> The problem with the smoking analogy is that we can't just send the
>global warming denyers outside, like we do with smokers. Do we really want
>to wait and see if the predicted disasters happen and then go, "Damn, I
>guess we should've done more sooner!" ? I like Portland as it is, and I
>don't like the idea of it being on a little island off the coast of Oregon.
>If there's even a chance that Al Gore's Inconvenience is True, I say let's
>change things agressively NOW.
>
> But come on . . . there's way more than a chance. Isn't this really
>about resistance to change?
>
> I have several friends who still smoke, including a couple of nurses.
>None of these people denies the risks, but I really think underneath it
all
>they just don't give a crap. "Hey, everybody dies of something."
>
> Is that what's really going on with the global warming "debate"? Is
it
>really just a battle between those who give a crap and those who don't?
I
>realize even planets don't last forever, but I think this one has a few
good
>millenia left in it if we can get it to lay off the cigarettes. :)
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message news:460ec4f9@linux...
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>
>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global warming
>> and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man who
>> invented the internet...
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82483 is a reply to message #82481] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 17:48 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinthetoposphere.org> wrote:
>
>I do not believe anyone here is stupid.
>
>DC
Neither do I, but even extremely intelligent people can do very dumb things.
If we all sit back and wait till its too late, we will have acted very stupid,
regardless of how intelligent we are. There are many intelligent members
of our government who are acting quite stupid on a daily basis. Being intelligent
and acting intelligent are quite different things.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but we have only one Earth. If
a few very vocal skeptics succeed in delaying the commitment needed to change
the direction the environment is heading, those people will have done serious
harm to the majority of people on the planet, even if that was not their
intention.
If the environmental and scientific communities are right and the naysayers
are wrong, the naysayers are fucking up my one-and-only World and I feel
I should have the right to fight for it.
A major problem continues to be the millions that have been spent on the
disinformation campaign. The energy industry (with the help of our government)
has done this to protect its astronomical profits and many conservative organizations
and individuals have gotten on-board because of long time alignments with
big business. But today we must look beyond historic political alignments
and find a solution for the planet. That is why many are coming around. The
science is clear. The world will soon be divided into those who are willing
to make personal sacrifices for the future of the planet and those who will
continue to go for everything they can personally amass. A third group, which
I am a member of, will be willing to fight to save what s left. And the fight
starts with speaking out!
Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - scientists, schmientists . . . [message #82484 is a reply to message #82482] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 17:47 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey, cowboy :)
I guess you missed my post above. I watched the movie, and I addressed
that response in my first post above. As you may notice, I found his
implication regarding the Third World somewhat less than compelling.
S
"DC" <dc@spammersinthetroposphere.com> wrote in message
news:46104910$1@linux...
>
> They give a pretty compelling response to this in the movie.
>
> Take a look.
>
> DC
>
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>OK,
>>
>> Here's a question . . . let's say for a second there really is a
>>scientific debate about the threat of global warming . . . what is wrong
>
>>with "Better safe than sorry?" Doesn't such common sense apply to the
>>health of the biosphere?
>>
>> I hate to use the smoking analogy, but that's only because I didn't
>
>>think of it first. :) I think it's a good analogy. The idea that
>>inhaling
>
>>tobacco smoke is unhealthy was around long before scientists in the '60s
>
>>apparently convinced the surgeon general (or somebody) that "smoking may
> be
>>hazardous to your health." Yeah, just maybe. My father quit immediately
>
>>when the warnings became official. My mother said, "Oh, nonsense," and
> died
>>of lung cancer in the late '70s. As a nurse on a medical unit, I see the
>
>>damage from smoking every day, yet there are still lots of people smoking,
>
>>and even people who deny the health hazards!
>>
>> Smokers seem to come in two broad categories . . . those who say, "I
>
>>know I should quit, but I'm not ready," and those who say, "Ah, it's
>>bullshit. My grandpa smoked and lived to be 99!"
>>
>> Now scientists have put a big sticker across petroleum, gas, and coal,
>
>>"Warning: burning of fossil fuels may be hazardous to life on earth." As
>
>>with cigarette smoking, some of us want to quit right away -- why take
>>chances? Others seem to be saying, well, maybe this is a problem, but I'm
>
>>not ready to quit. Others deny the warnings altogether and light up
>>another
>
>>SUV.
>>
>> The problem with the smoking analogy is that we can't just send the
>
>>global warming denyers outside, like we do with smokers. Do we really
>>want
>
>>to wait and see if the predicted disasters happen and then go, "Damn, I
>
>>guess we should've done more sooner!" ? I like Portland as it is, and I
>
>>don't like the idea of it being on a little island off the coast of
>>Oregon.
>
>>If there's even a chance that Al Gore's Inconvenience is True, I say let's
>
>>change things agressively NOW.
>>
>> But come on . . . there's way more than a chance. Isn't this really
>
>>about resistance to change?
>>
>> I have several friends who still smoke, including a couple of nurses.
>
>>None of these people denies the risks, but I really think underneath it
> all
>>they just don't give a crap. "Hey, everybody dies of something."
>>
>> Is that what's really going on with the global warming "debate"? Is
> it
>>really just a battle between those who give a crap and those who don't?
> I
>>realize even planets don't last forever, but I think this one has a few
> good
>>millenia left in it if we can get it to lay off the cigarettes. :)
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>>news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>
>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>> warming
>
>>> and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man who
>>> invented the internet...
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82485 is a reply to message #82477] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 18:35 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for keeping an open mind, Don. If you can point me to the papers
published by the two scientists you mention, I'll check 'em out. I keep
an open mind, too.
But given what's at stake, I don't want to pussyfoot around when so much
evidence and so many experts point to problems building up.
Especially when smaller actions taken now could give us a much, much
better chance of preserving a livable climate, longer term, than even
incredibly difficult, economy crashing cold turkey attempts would
achieve if we sit around and wait until later.
Also, considering that mitigating green house gas emissions has other
positive benefits in addressing other problems, we may as well get
started. Many of the global warming solutions will also help us deal
with peak oil, local pollution problems and national security risks, to
name a few.
We have a huge responsibility to do the right thing. Let's not wait
until it's too late. The benefits of starting now are compelling. The
risks of waiting are high, and growing higher the longer we wait.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460fec68$1@linux...
>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
>>> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
>>> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen
>>> AFTER the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a
>>> fool to believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global
>>> warming. Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>>>
>>> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the CO2
>>> increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
>> Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
>>
>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>>
>> In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
>> the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are now
>> contributing to the current climate change.
>>
>> If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some sense
>> to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are drawing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
> We have two experts on climate here in Ottawa and both disagree vehemently
> that CO2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are presently
> experiencing. In fact one of them is a climate modelling expert and you
> should hear him rail against the models that are being used by the Global
> Warmists.
>
> All I can say Jamie is we will have to agree to disagree but I'm keeping an
> open mind albeit a skeptical one.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82486 is a reply to message #82478] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 18:35 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill,
I like your positive attitude. Fun is good. But in the meantime, can
you get your e-meter out and audit the evil intentions out of the oil
company executives? Hey, clearing the planet could take on a whole new more
literal meaning. :)
Sarah
"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message news:4610398c@linux...
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I read the article, and it indicated that CO2 did not trigger the warming,
> but that it was part of the after/contributing effects.
>
> I wish we would all work on positive actions we can take to handle the
> sitaution instead of what we must give up and stop doing and make amends
> for. People like to DO things not give up things. They like to CREATE, not
> reduce, and frankly it's better for them. I would much rather go on an
> excercise program than a low calory diet. Telling a person to stop doing
> something is much less effective than showing them how to do something
> different and better (and hopefully more fun).
>
> Let's work on creative ways to make posotive changes in our world. One of
> the articles posted above pointed out that we will have more food
> production as an effect of global warming. Well that's a good thing, and
> we can capitalize on it by helping to ameliorate famine, but that's never
> mentioned by the blamers and takers-away.
>
> Speaking very honestly, I would be OK with having fewer polar bears if the
> millions of starving people on Earth could eat a healthy diet. But ideally
> we can find solutions that don't harm anything, but actually SOLVE the
> problem, not just reduce all the bad things we humans are doing to the
> poor pitiful world. Let's get really smart and handle the hell out of it
> instead of tiptoeing around being all careful and apologetic. Let's have
> some fun!
>
> Bill L
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460fec68$1@linux...
>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
>>> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
>>> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen
>>> AFTER the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a
>>> fool to believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global
>>> warming. Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>>>
>>> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the
>>> CO2 increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
>>
>> Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
>>
>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>>
>> In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
>> the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are now
>> contributing to the current climate change.
>>
>> If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some sense
>> to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are drawing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82488 is a reply to message #82478] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 18:48 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
ultimate warming.
OK, back to now. We are releasing C02 directly into the system. The
planet is warming. Warming can lead to more greenhouse gases being
released (melting tundra, for example) which leads to more warming.
This is risky behavior on our part. We can already see effects and the
greenhouse gases we've released will be in the atmosphere for a very
long time. And we continue to add an increasing amount even as we speak.
Alarms are going off in the scientific world. We can see what is
happening. A consensus of experts in varied fields are making the
connections. This is an immediate challenge. How do we respond?
As you imply, it would be difficult to stop our current behaviors
instantly. That would cause some immediate new problems.
But we can look at the total sum of changes needed to mitigate the
greenhouse gases we produce. Then, look at possible solutions and the
amount of mitigation available from each solution. We can then choose
the optimal combination of solutions to apply, together, that add up to
the amount of mitigation needed.
Here's one article proposing possible solutions:
"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and
industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next
half-century.
A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs
over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO 2 to a trajectory that
avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in
this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration
project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale.
Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or
even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough
that not every element has to be used."
Here's their list - choose 7 to expand into solution "wedges":
1. Efficient vehicles
2. Reduced use of vehicles
3. Efficient buildings
4. Efficient baseload coal plants
5. Gas baseload power for coal
6. Capture CO2 at baseload power plant
7. Capture CO2 at H2 plant
8. Capture CO2 at coal-to-synfuels plant
9. Nuclear power for coal power
10. Wind power for coal power
11. PV power for coal power
12. Wind H2 in fuel-cell car for gasoline in hybrid car
13. Biomass fuel for fossil fuel
14. Reduced deforestation, plus reforestation
15. Conservation tillage
Much more info in the artlcle:
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf
A similar article is in the September 2006 issue of Scientific American
which focuses on "how to power the economy and still fight global warming."
Look for the issue called "Energy's Future Beyond Carbon." They did a
great job of covering major options. Worth a trip to the library or
ordering from the web site.
(Volume 295, Number 3 - www.sciam.com - with some free overviews
available here: http://www.sciam.com/issue.cfm?issueDate=Sep-06)
Bill I like your idea of positive actions, and the quickest first action
is to do everything we can to encourage efficiency.
A simple example is using a compact fluorescent light bulb instead of a
standard incandescent light bulb. Both create light and heat. The CF
creates more light, less heat. The incandescent bulb creates mostly
heat, relatively little light. It should be called a "heat" bulb not a
"light" bulb. It is, in fact, the heating element for the easy bake oven.
If everyone switches to CF, we can build fewer power plants and save on
greenhouse gas emissions. While still lighting our lives. New LED
lighting technology is also worth looking at for efficiency.
We need more technologies like those. From appliances to transportation
to manufacturing. Energy policy should be written to encourage
efficiency. Do the same work with less wasteful approaches.
This will also save money and stimulate new markets. Let's have some
fun, indeed!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Bill Lorentzen wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I read the article, and it indicated that CO2 did not trigger the warming,
> but that it was part of the after/contributing effects.
>
> I wish we would all work on positive actions we can take to handle the
> sitaution instead of what we must give up and stop doing and make amends
> for. People like to DO things not give up things. They like to CREATE, not
> reduce, and frankly it's better for them. I would much rather go on an
> excercise program than a low calory diet. Telling a person to stop doing
> something is much less effective than showing them how to do something
> different and better (and hopefully more fun).
>
> Let's work on creative ways to make posotive changes in our world. One of
> the articles posted above pointed out that we will have more food production
> as an effect of global warming. Well that's a good thing, and we can
> capitalize on it by helping to ameliorate famine, but that's never mentioned
> by the blamers and takers-away.
>
> Speaking very honestly, I would be OK with having fewer polar bears if the
> millions of starving people on Earth could eat a healthy diet. But ideally
> we can find solutions that don't harm anything, but actually SOLVE the
> problem, not just reduce all the bad things we humans are doing to the poor
> pitiful world. Let's get really smart and handle the hell out of it instead
> of tiptoeing around being all careful and apologetic. Let's have some fun!
>
> Bill L
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460fec68$1@linux...
>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
>>> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
>>> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen
>>> AFTER the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a
>>> fool to believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global
>>> warming. Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>>>
>>> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the CO2
>>> increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
>> Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
>>
>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>>
>> In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
>> the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are now
>> contributing to the current climate change.
>>
>> If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some sense
>> to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are drawing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82489 is a reply to message #82483] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 21:46 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>If the environmental and scientific communities are right and the naysayers
>are wrong, the naysayers are fucking up my one-and-only World and I feel
>I should have the right to fight for it.
And some of the scientific community disagrees.
They should be heard, not silenced, nor smeared.
If climate change (which even developing an actual "global
temperature" is quite in dispute about) really correlates
closely to sun activity, and the basis for calling carbon the
culprit is in dispute, then the brave and courageous ones are
on the other side aren't they? Especially with the vicousness
of the campaign against them, they look virtuous, rather than
scummy.
You are sure of being right. I am unconvinced either you or
"the naysayers" are right at this point.
There are agendas (other than "saving the planet") potentially
corrupting both viewpoints.
One thing we know is that the scientists are not going to
is shutup,even when smeared and threatened with death,
as Ball has been.
But then, he is just an "industry spokesman", right?
There is no evidence of that. It looks like a smear campaign.
I am willing to be wrong. I am still very worried about all
this, but millions of us are still looking, without our minds
made up. Don't think we are stupid, nor being stupid, nor
greedy, nor grabbing to amass everything we can.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - scientists, schmientists . . . [message #82490 is a reply to message #82484] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 22:05 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>As you may notice, I found his
>implication regarding the Third World somewhat less than compelling.
Hi Sarah!
Hey, I think the African was telling the truth, and really wants
the basics of civilization, but here is what really worries me
about "playing it safe"
We are not only likely to ruin our economies, but, because of
huge loopholes in things like Kyoto (exempting certain countries
from the goals) we are likely to drastically increase pollution
and greenhouse gases as all manufacturing moves to the
exempted countries. I saw it happen in the furniture biz here
in California. My brother's company closed and moved to
Mexico because of their pollution exemptions! The furniture
biz is almost dead in CA because of ill-considered enviromental
regs, but thrives in Mexico, where the (much higher) pollution
wafts right back across the border...
WTF?
Politics and socialism infect and corrupt most enviromental
movements. It's like the stupidity of being dependant on the
middle east (of all places) for energy. Every time someone
brings up the strategic horrors of this situation, someone
starts talking about "alternative energy". It's like our worldwide
crisis, which could lead to a huge war, is their "big opportunity"
to remind us of geothermal... ??
Oh, and our president gives his
brother's buddies in FL, "no drilling" laws to protect their
precious ocean views from the heartbreak of looking at
drilling platforms... (hey wasn't he an oil-company shill?)
We have become so selfish...
My solution would be to slam the door on both the energy
industry lobby, AND the environmental lobby, and first
go on a crash diet to eliminate middle eastern oil in ten years.
First, we drill drill drill. Don't like oil platforms?
Move to Antartica.
At the same time, we look at every viable alternative and
take it as far as it can be taken.
Manhattan-project priority to both projects.
And NO scientist should be smeared nor threatened unless
it is proven that they are corrupt. We MUST remove ideology
from this process and get the truth.
We need the truth, not the "truth", meaning my truth or your
truth, and the damn shouting loudmouths on both sides need
to lose their place at the table.
That movie did not create the opposition to the global warming
consensus, it simply exposed it.
my .02
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - scientists, schmientists . . . [message #82498 is a reply to message #82491] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 08:36 |
Paul Artola
Messages: 161
Registered: November 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
While the "right thing" is certain still under debate, I think the
reality is that if the President were to attempt a radical shift in
our energy policy, he would find his political (i.e. financial)
backers would desert him long before an assassin's bullets, bombs, or
infectious poodles would ever have a chance to work.
I am amused by all the debate on this subject in this newsgroup, but
until large sections of our economy no longer rely on petrodollars,
the changes people desire are not likely to come about by governmental
proclimation. Thousands (millions?) of jobs ( = livelihoods = votes)
are at stake.
In an analogous, fashion, what if the President declared that ProTools
was now banned? How many studios would go out of business as a result
of that? Hmmm, come to think of it...
- Paul Artola
Real World, Maryland
On 2 Apr 2007 15:14:13 +1000, "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, I think that if we had a president that was actually capable
>of doing the right thing, he/she would be assassinated asap.
>
>The really fugged-up thing is you just don't know which side
>would do it first?
>
>A middle eastern wacko?
>An Oregon anarcho-enviro wacko?
>(sorry, not you those guys down 5 a ways)
>An energy industry hit man?
>Tim McVeigh's cousin?
>
>This is what is so bad about the times we live in. It is not
>that certain people want an apocolypse, it's that I am not
>sure anyone can stop it...
>
>I would love to be wrong.
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82508 is a reply to message #82500] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:14 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>
>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>
>
> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
> warming periods.
What evidence is that?
Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
previous warming events?
Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
the current warming event?
From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
"Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would
follow from unprecedented events.
But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
relevant insights and dire warnings.
During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the
importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago,
ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose
over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible
to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive
releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller
warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean,
atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The
result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to
recover from.
We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of
greenhouse gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped
its frozen state.
In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
warnings."
>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the ultimate
>> warming.
>>
>
> Then can you explain
>
> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
favors our species.
Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
have been so favorable.
The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
This is an interesting article about ice ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
We don't want that, either.
The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future generations.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82510 is a reply to message #82508] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:24 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From your quoted source
"During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2 concentrations
showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals that CO2 does not
lead the temperature changes, but lags by many centuries. Even so, the full
extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2.
Though these cycles do not demonstrate that greenhouse gas initiated
warming, they do lend credence to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting
the planetary thermostat."
Lending credence is not evidence...it is a theory
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>
>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>
>>
>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>> warming periods.
>
> What evidence is that?
>
> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
> previous warming events?
>
> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
> the current warming event?
>
> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>
> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>
> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
> from unprecedented events.
>
> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>
> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>
> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>
> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
> state.
>
> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
> warnings."
>
>
>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>> ultimate warming.
>>>
>>
>> Then can you explain
>>
>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>
> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
> favors our species.
>
> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
> have been so favorable.
>
> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>
>
>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>
> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>
> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>
> We don't want that, either.
>
> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>
> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
> generations.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming - deniers, schmeniers... [message #82511 is a reply to message #82498] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:26 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A lot comes down to "follow the money."
However, there is a strong case that there is money to be made in new
energy development. And a lot of patriotic benefits in transitioning to
more forward looking energy policies.
Plus, Don has been wrong in the past. So I'm optimistic. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Paul Artola wrote:
> While the "right thing" is certain still under debate, I think the
> reality is that if the President were to attempt a radical shift in
> our energy policy, he would find his political (i.e. financial)
> backers would desert him long before an assassin's bullets, bombs, or
> infectious poodles would ever have a chance to work.
>
> I am amused by all the debate on this subject in this newsgroup, but
> until large sections of our economy no longer rely on petrodollars,
> the changes people desire are not likely to come about by governmental
> proclimation. Thousands (millions?) of jobs ( = livelihoods = votes)
> are at stake.
>
> In an analogous, fashion, what if the President declared that ProTools
> was now banned? How many studios would go out of business as a result
> of that? Hmmm, come to think of it...
>
> - Paul Artola
> Real World, Maryland
>
> On 2 Apr 2007 15:14:13 +1000, "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I think that if we had a president that was actually capable
>> of doing the right thing, he/she would be assassinated asap.
>>
>> The really fugged-up thing is you just don't know which side
>> would do it first?
>>
>> A middle eastern wacko?
>> An Oregon anarcho-enviro wacko?
>> (sorry, not you those guys down 5 a ways)
>> An energy industry hit man?
>> Tim McVeigh's cousin?
>>
>> This is what is so bad about the times we live in. It is not
>> that certain people want an apocolypse, it's that I am not
>> sure anyone can stop it...
>>
>> I would love to be wrong.
>>
>> DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS-polemic! [message #82513 is a reply to message #82510] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:31 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Evidence supports (or doesn't support) theories. That's how science
works. In this case, he is saying the effects of C02 explain the extent
of warming from those events. You can go to the link and read the rest
of the site for more clarification.
Then get back to me on why we should ignore the evidence. I don't think
we should.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> From your quoted source
>
> "During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2 concentrations
> showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals that CO2 does not
> lead the temperature changes, but lags by many centuries. Even so, the full
> extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2.
> Though these cycles do not demonstrate that greenhouse gas initiated
> warming, they do lend credence to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting
> the planetary thermostat."
>
>
> Lending credence is not evidence...it is a theory
>
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>>
>>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>>> warming periods.
>> What evidence is that?
>>
>> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
>> previous warming events?
>>
>> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
>> the current warming event?
>>
>> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>>
>> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
>> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>>
>> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
>> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
>> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
>> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
>> from unprecedented events.
>>
>> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
>> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>>
>> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
>> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>>
>> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
>> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
>> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
>> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
>> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
>> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
>> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
>> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
>> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
>> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
>> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
>> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>>
>> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
>> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
>> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
>> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
>> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
>> state.
>>
>> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
>> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
>> warnings."
>>
>>
>>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>>> ultimate warming.
>>>>
>>> Then can you explain
>>>
>>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
>> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
>> favors our species.
>>
>> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
>> have been so favorable.
>>
>> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>>
>>
>>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>>
>> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>>
>> We don't want that, either.
>>
>> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
>> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>>
>> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
>> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
>> generations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82514 is a reply to message #82508] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:30 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Also from your source
There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago,
ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose
over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible
to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive
releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller
warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean,
atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The
result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to
recover from.
Seems mother nature is a significant force behind climate change
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>
>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>
>>
>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>> warming periods.
>
> What evidence is that?
>
> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
> previous warming events?
>
> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
> the current warming event?
>
> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>
> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>
> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
> from unprecedented events.
>
> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>
> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>
> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>
> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
> state.
>
> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
> warnings."
>
>
>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>> ultimate warming.
>>>
>>
>> Then can you explain
>>
>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>
> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
> favors our species.
>
> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
> have been so favorable.
>
> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>
>
>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>
> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>
> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>
> We don't want that, either.
>
> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>
> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
> generations.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82516 is a reply to message #82508] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:34 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future generations.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Well put Jamie
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>
>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>
>>
>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>> warming periods.
>
> What evidence is that?
>
> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
> previous warming events?
>
> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
> the current warming event?
>
> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>
> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>
> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
> from unprecedented events.
>
> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>
> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>
> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>
> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
> state.
>
> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
> warnings."
>
>
>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>> ultimate warming.
>>>
>>
>> Then can you explain
>>
>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>
> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
> favors our species.
>
> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
> have been so favorable.
>
> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>
>
>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>
> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>
> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>
> We don't want that, either.
>
> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>
> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
> generations.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BSpolemic! [message #82518 is a reply to message #82489] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:46 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don, science is full of disagreement and that's the way science works.
Theories are created and tested. Data accumulates and is evaluated. Many
divergent voices are heard in the process and ideas are tested.
Conclusions are reached. Some theories are supported by the evidence,
others are not.
Fossil fuels PR flacks have exploited this innate process of
disagreement and testing to pretend there is reason to fail to act.
Because creating the illusion that it's too soon to act achieves their
client's aim of encouraging hesitation. Why? Probably because they
perceive action on this issue as a threat to a business model that
encourages greenhouse gas production. (Some of the biggest "smear
campaigns" probably originated with those folks.)
And so we hear a lot of well financed misinformation and amplification
of any shred of disagreement. And all of that gets repeated ad nauseam
in an attempt to drown out the concensus of mainstream climate science.
There is room for disagreement in science. Peer-reviewed studies talk,
BS walks. If someone has a good theory backed by strong data with
repeatable experimental results, the scientific mainstream will come to
them. If they don't, fuggetaboutit.
At this point, given the scientific consensus and the potential risks,
global warming denial is foot dragging, foolish and yesterday's news.
The world is moving on to face the problem and deal with it.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> If the environmental and scientific communities are right and the naysayers
>> are wrong, the naysayers are fucking up my one-and-only World and I feel
>> I should have the right to fight for it.
>
> And some of the scientific community disagrees.
> They should be heard, not silenced, nor smeared.
>
> If climate change (which even developing an actual "global
> temperature" is quite in dispute about) really correlates
> closely to sun activity, and the basis for calling carbon the
> culprit is in dispute, then the brave and courageous ones are
> on the other side aren't they? Especially with the vicousness
> of the campaign against them, they look virtuous, rather than
> scummy.
>
> You are sure of being right. I am unconvinced either you or
> "the naysayers" are right at this point.
>
> There are agendas (other than "saving the planet") potentially
> corrupting both viewpoints.
>
> One thing we know is that the scientists are not going to
> is shutup,even when smeared and threatened with death,
> as Ball has been.
>
> But then, he is just an "industry spokesman", right?
>
> There is no evidence of that. It looks like a smear campaign.
>
> I am willing to be wrong. I am still very worried about all
> this, but millions of us are still looking, without our minds
> made up. Don't think we are stupid, nor being stupid, nor
> greedy, nor grabbing to amass everything we can.
>
> DC
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82519 is a reply to message #82514] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 10:53 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's right Don, there are many climate drivers. Over earth's history,
evidence shows complex interactions and wide changes to climate.
As you can see from that link, scientists who now recognize human-caused
greenhouse gas production as a significant driver of the current warming
event, also fully recognize other climate drivers involved in this and
previous events.
For scientists conclusions are based on evidence, and the evidence
points to human causes for the current global warming event.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> Also from your source
>
> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago,
> ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose
> over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible
> to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive
> releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller
> warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean,
> atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The
> result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to
> recover from.
>
> Seems mother nature is a significant force behind climate change
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>>
>>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>>> warming periods.
>> What evidence is that?
>>
>> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
>> previous warming events?
>>
>> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
>> the current warming event?
>>
>> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>>
>> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
>> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>>
>> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
>> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
>> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
>> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
>> from unprecedented events.
>>
>> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
>> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>>
>> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
>> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>>
>> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
>> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
>> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
>> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
>> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
>> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
>> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
>> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
>> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
>> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
>> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
>> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>>
>> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
>> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
>> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
>> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
>> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
>> state.
>>
>> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
>> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
>> warnings."
>>
>>
>>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>>> ultimate warming.
>>>>
>>> Then can you explain
>>>
>>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
>> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
>> favors our species.
>>
>> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
>> have been so favorable.
>>
>> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>>
>>
>>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>>
>> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>>
>> We don't want that, either.
>>
>> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
>> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>>
>> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
>> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
>> generations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS -polemic! [message #82523 is a reply to message #82513] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 11:10 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113ede@linux...
>
> Evidence supports (or doesn't support) theories. That's how science works.
> In this case, he is saying the effects of C02 explain the extent of
> warming from those events. You can go to the link and read the rest of the
> site for more clarification.
>
> Then get back to me on why we should ignore the evidence. I don't think we
> should.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
I have never said ignore the evidence...but what I am concerned about is
that you seem to feel that every piece of evidence that contradicts CO2 as
the driving force behind Global Warming is nothing more than Oil Industry
propoganda.
Even within the very paper you quote it states that CO2 does not cause
Global Warming...it is a factor...but not the single driving force behind
Global Warming.
On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host quoted
some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could close down
all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing in Ontario and
we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less than 50% of the
required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As to how accurate he was,
I can't say for sure but he is quoting from leading economists, scientists
etc.
So in essence we shut down our country's economy and we're still not even
1/2 way to our 1990 CO2 levels...
Somthing is wrong with this picture
>
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> From your quoted source
>>
>> "During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
>> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."
>>
>>
>> Lending credence is not evidence...it is a theory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:461061e0@linux...
>>>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back
>>>>> then) during that particular series of events (different circumstances
>>>>> than now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>>>
>>>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any
>>>> previous warming periods.
>>> What evidence is that?
>>>
>>> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
>>> previous warming events?
>>>
>>> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
>>> the current warming event?
>>>
>>> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>>>
>>> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
>>> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>>>
>>> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
>>> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
>>> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
>>> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would
>>> follow from unprecedented events.
>>>
>>> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
>>> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>>>
>>> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the
>>> importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>>>
>>> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
>>> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
>>> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
>>> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago,
>>> ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose
>>> over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
>>> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible
>>> to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive
>>> releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller
>>> warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean,
>>> atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The
>>> result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to
>>> recover from.
>>>
>>> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
>>> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
>>> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
>>> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of
>>> greenhouse gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped
>>> its frozen state.
>>>
>>> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
>>> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
>>> warnings."
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>>>> ultimate warming.
>>>>>
>>>> Then can you explain
>>>>
>>>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>>> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
>>> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
>>> favors our species.
>>>
>>> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
>>> have been so favorable.
>>>
>>> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>>>
>>>
>>>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>>> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>>>
>>> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>>>
>>> We don't want that, either.
>>>
>>> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
>>> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>>>
>>> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
>>> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
>>> generations.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS-polemic! [message #82525 is a reply to message #82523] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 11:59 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113ede@linux...
>> Evidence supports (or doesn't support) theories. That's how science works.
>> In this case, he is saying the effects of C02 explain the extent of
>> warming from those events. You can go to the link and read the rest of the
>> site for more clarification.
>>
>> Then get back to me on why we should ignore the evidence. I don't think we
>> should.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
> I have never said ignore the evidence...but what I am concerned about is
> that you seem to feel that every piece of evidence that contradicts CO2 as
> the driving force behind Global Warming is nothing more than Oil Industry
> propoganda.
Science is based on theories that are tested. Disagreements are common.
A consensus comes from what the data supports. Some theories are
supported others are not.
Anything else is probably distortion from special interests. The sheer
volume of distortion on this issue has been impressive.
From implications that climate scientists are so stupid they've
overlooked other climate drivers (they haven't), to claims that any
possible objection of the mainstream consensus is enough to cast into
complete doubt years of research and mountains of data (nope).
> Even within the very paper you quote it states that CO2 does not cause
> Global Warming...it is a factor...but not the single driving force behind
> Global Warming.
Don't confuse one event with another. In the past event discussed, the
driver was not initially C02, but C02 was released by the beginnings of
the event and it then contributed the major warming to that event.
In the current event, we are releasing C02 (that was previously stored a
long time ago in the earth), and our action is contributing to the
current global warming event.
> On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host quoted
> some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could close down
> all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing in Ontario and
> we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less than 50% of the
> required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As to how accurate he was,
> I can't say for sure but he is quoting from leading economists, scientists
> etc.
Yet another distortion that is making the rounds. The "it's too late
anyway so why bother" distortion.
The truth is no single solution will solve the problem. It's going to
take a combination of solutions. Any solution by itself will look like a
disaster.
From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954
"Objection: The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global
warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of
potentially billions of people.
Answer: Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global
warming must be wrong? You can not come to a rational decision about the
reality of a danger by considering how hard it might be to avoid. First
things first: understand that the problem is real and present.
Once you acknowledge the necessity of addressing the problem, taking
action suddenly become less daunting. There is no point in discussing
the best solutions or the cost of those solutions with someone who does
not yet acknowledge the problem.
But even if mitigating global warming would be harmful, given that
famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a
tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible
consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice
between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively
demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we try to
reduce fossil fuel use.
Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative
fuels, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation
are forgetting something rather important. Fossil fuels are a
non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic
transformation regardless, whether now or a bit later. Many bright minds
inside the industry think we are already at peak oil. So even if it
turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in
a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner
rather than later.
Seems like a win-win situation to me."
OK, onto the multiple solution topic: I posted this list of possible
solutions before. It's worth checking out just for the idea that we can
evaluate and choose the optimal combination of solutions:
"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and
industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next
half-century.
A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs
over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO 2 to a trajectory that
avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in
this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration
project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale.
Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or
even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough
that not every element has to be used."
Here's their list - choose 7 to expand into solution "wedges":
1. Efficient vehicles
2. Reduced use of vehicles
3. Efficient buildings
4. Efficient baseload coal plants
5. Gas baseload power for coal
6. Capture CO2 at baseload power plant
7. Capture CO2 at H2 plant
8. Capture CO2 at coal-to-synfuels plant
9. Nuclear power for coal power
10. Wind power for coal power
11. PV power for coal power
12. Wind H2 in fuel-cell car for gasoline in hybrid car
13. Biomass fuel for fossil fuel
14. Reduced deforestation, plus reforestation
15. Conservation tillage
Much more info in the article:
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf
> So in essence we shut down our country's economy and we're still not even
> 1/2 way to our 1990 CO2 levels...
>
> Somthing is wrong with this picture
Yes indeed. It is wildly incorrect.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> From your quoted source
>>>
>>> "During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
>>> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."
>>>
>>>
>>> Lending credence is not evidence...it is a theory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
>>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:461061e0@linux...
>>>>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back
>>>>>> then) during that particular series of events (different circumstances
>>>>>> than now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>>>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any
>>>>> previous warming periods.
>>>> What evidence is that?
>>>>
>>>> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
>>>> previous warming events?
>>>>
>>>> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
>>>> the current warming event?
>>>>
>>>> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>>>>
>>>> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
>>>> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>>>>
>>>> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
>>>> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
>>>> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
>>>> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would
>>>> follow from unprecedented events.
>>>>
>>>> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
>>>> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>>>>
>>>> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>>>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>>>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>>>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>>>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>>>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the
>>>> importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>>>>
>>>> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
>>>> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
>>>> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
>>>> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago,
>>>> ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose
>>>> over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
>>>> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible
>>>> to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive
>>>> releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller
>>>> warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean,
>>>> atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The
>>>> result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to
>>>> recover from.
>>>>
>>>> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
>>>> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
>>>> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
>>>> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of
>>>> greenhouse gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped
>>>> its frozen state.
>>>>
>>>> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
>>>> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
>>>> warnings."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>>>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>>>>> ultimate warming.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then can you explain
>>>>>
>>>>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>>>> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
>>>> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
>>>> favors our species.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
>>>> have been so favorable.
>>>>
>>>> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>>>> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>>>>
>>>> We don't want that, either.
>>>>
>>>> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
>>>> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
>>>> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
>>>> generations.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82526 is a reply to message #82516] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 12:03 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>
> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future generations.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Well put Jamie
Thanks Don.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46113adc@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:461061e0@linux...
>>>> Thanks for checking out the article, Bill.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion was that in the period of time discussed (way back then)
>>>> during that particular series of events (different circumstances than
>>>> now), even then, notice that C02 was the major factor in warming.
>>>
>>> There is evidence to the contrary that CO2 was the cause of any previous
>>> warming periods.
>> What evidence is that?
>>
>> Should we ignore all the major evidence that C02 was a contributor to
>> previous warming events?
>>
>> Should we ignore the compelling evidence that C02 is a primary cause of
>> the current warming event?
>>
>> From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67
>>
>> "Objection: In the geological record, it is clear that CO2 does not
>> trigger climate changes. Why should it be any different now?
>>
>> Answer: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the
>> history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for
>> CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today?
>> Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow
>> from unprecedented events.
>>
>> But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some
>> relevant insights and dire warnings.
>>
>> During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2
>> concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals
>> that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many
>> centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained
>> without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that
>> greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance
>> of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
>>
>> There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in
>> temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse
>> gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene
>> Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean
>> pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over
>> 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this
>> occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to
>> know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of
>> methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or
>> changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere,
>> and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass
>> extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
>>
>> We can also look at the formation of the Deccan Traps. In this case, a
>> massive and sustained volcanic action altered atmospheric chemistry and
>> caused a drastic climate change, one that lead to the extinction of the
>> dinosaurs. And Snowball Earth theories involve the build-up of greenhouse
>> gases as the mechanism by which the earth eventually escaped its frozen
>> state.
>>
>> In short, it is simply untrue that history lacks precedent for
>> greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the dire
>> warnings."
>>
>>
>>>> Even in cases where C02 didn't happen first, the initial warming still
>>>> lead to C02 releases, and the C02 then caused the majority of the
>>>> ultimate warming.
>>>>
>>> Then can you explain
>>>
>>> a) why the earth didn't continue to heat itself into oblivion
>> What do you mean by oblivion? The earth has been very hot in the past.
>> Luckily for us, the earth has lately come to a balance that currently
>> favors our species.
>>
>> Clearly the balance at various times in earth's history would not always
>> have been so favorable.
>>
>> The balance now is pretty good for humans, so let's not screw it up.
>>
>>
>>> b) what caused the eventual cooling periods
>> Which ones? There are many drivers of climate.
>>
>> This is an interesting article about ice ages:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
>>
>> We don't want that, either.
>>
>> The current problem we face is warming, and the data suggests human
>> produced greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem.
>>
>> Since we control what we produce, we have the opportunity and
>> responsibility to do something about it, for the sake of future
>> generations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS-polemic! [message #82529 is a reply to message #82528] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 13:19 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>> On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host
>>> quoted some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could
>>> close down all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing in
>>> Ontario and we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less than 50%
>>> of the required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As to how
>>> accurate he was, I can't say for sure but he is quoting from leading
>>> economists, scientists etc.
>
> you wrote:
>
>> Yet another distortion that is making the rounds. The "it's too late
>> anyway so why bother" distortion.
>>
>
> And who says that what I wrote above is a distortion?
>
> On one hand you expect me to accept that your position is undeniable and
> overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence yet when I suggest that
> there is possibility that living up to Kyoto could bankrupt the economy you
> immediately call it a distortion.
Whether Kyoto chooses the optimal set of solutions or not is a different
subject. I haven't been proclaiming for or against Kyoto.
The distortion I'm referring to here is the notion that "it's too late
so why bother." Whether you hear it from a radio show or a shill web
site set up by the fossil fuels industry.
Anyone who is seriously arguing that position will have to show me data
to support it. I haven't seen any reason to accept that defeatist
attitude, other than protecting the status quo for one industries
current business model.
What I have seen is the well supported position that a combination of
solutions, engaged in now, has a good chance of making a worthwhile
difference for future generations.
> And therein lies the dilema I have...the teapot calling the kettle black
> syndrome
Hah! That's it in a nutshell. That is the crux of the PR campaign.
Misinformation and amplifying of pretty much any objection into "hold
it" status is the goal. To portray the science as if there's a huge
controversy. To imply that scientists don't know enough. That the
majority of climate scientists are ignorant bullies and finks, and
probably hate your momma, while the few scientists who don't agree with
the consensus, along with all the lobbyist supported PR flacks and radio
talk show hosts are surely gallant unsung heros, bravely fighting for YOU.
These are exaggerations meant to help us say, "hey wait, we can't just
go rushing off to fix the problem. Let's wait."
Bingo. Waiting is the goal of the fossil fuels lobby. That's all they
want. Put it off.
And if we wait until it really is too late, too bad.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS -polemic! [message #82533 is a reply to message #82529] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 15:46 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
First off - my apologies, I misunderstood your "its too late..." distortion
statement
Secondly - my reply still stands...tea pot calling the kettle black (he said
she said) - it is relevant
Thirdly - I'm glad we both agree this planet is on the fast track to hell
Fourthly - I'm glad we both agree there are workable solutions to these
problems
Fifthly - I am glad we are able to agree to disagree and able to carry on a
rational debate
and
Last but not least...I've enjoyed this discourse...I have learned a lot
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46116653$1@linux...
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>>> On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host
>>>> quoted some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could
>>>> close down all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing
>>>> in Ontario and we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less
>>>> than 50% of the required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As to
>>>> how accurate he was, I can't say for sure but he is quoting from
>>>> leading economists, scientists etc.
>>
>> you wrote:
>>
>>> Yet another distortion that is making the rounds. The "it's too late
>>> anyway so why bother" distortion.
>>>
>>
>> And who says that what I wrote above is a distortion?
>>
>> On one hand you expect me to accept that your position is undeniable and
>> overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence yet when I suggest
>> that there is possibility that living up to Kyoto could bankrupt the
>> economy you immediately call it a distortion.
>
> Whether Kyoto chooses the optimal set of solutions or not is a different
> subject. I haven't been proclaiming for or against Kyoto.
>
> The distortion I'm referring to here is the notion that "it's too late so
> why bother." Whether you hear it from a radio show or a shill web site set
> up by the fossil fuels industry.
>
> Anyone who is seriously arguing that position will have to show me data to
> support it. I haven't seen any reason to accept that defeatist attitude,
> other than protecting the status quo for one industries current business
> model.
>
> What I have seen is the well supported position that a combination of
> solutions, engaged in now, has a good chance of making a worthwhile
> difference for future generations.
>
>
>> And therein lies the dilema I have...the teapot calling the kettle black
>> syndrome
>
> Hah! That's it in a nutshell. That is the crux of the PR campaign.
>
> Misinformation and amplifying of pretty much any objection into "hold it"
> status is the goal. To portray the science as if there's a huge
> controversy. To imply that scientists don't know enough. That the majority
> of climate scientists are ignorant bullies and finks, and probably hate
> your momma, while the few scientists who don't agree with the consensus,
> along with all the lobbyist supported PR flacks and radio talk show hosts
> are surely gallant unsung heros, bravely fighting for YOU.
>
> These are exaggerations meant to help us say, "hey wait, we can't just go
> rushing off to fix the problem. Let's wait."
>
> Bingo. Waiting is the goal of the fossil fuels lobby. That's all they
> want. Put it off.
>
> And if we wait until it really is too late, too bad.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS -polemic! [message #82535 is a reply to message #82533] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 15:59 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh! and one more...probably the most omportant of them all
At least we are both doing something about it!
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:461188fc@linux...
> First off - my apologies, I misunderstood your "its too late..."
> distortion statement
>
> Secondly - my reply still stands...tea pot calling the kettle black (he
> said she said) - it is relevant
>
> Thirdly - I'm glad we both agree this planet is on the fast track to hell
>
> Fourthly - I'm glad we both agree there are workable solutions to these
> problems
>
> Fifthly - I am glad we are able to agree to disagree and able to carry on
> a rational debate
>
> and
>
> Last but not least...I've enjoyed this discourse...I have learned a lot
>
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46116653$1@linux...
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host
>>>>> quoted some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could
>>>>> close down all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing
>>>>> in Ontario and we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less
>>>>> than 50% of the required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As
>>>>> to how accurate he was, I can't say for sure but he is quoting from
>>>>> leading economists, scientists etc.
>>>
>>> you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet another distortion that is making the rounds. The "it's too late
>>>> anyway so why bother" distortion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And who says that what I wrote above is a distortion?
>>>
>>> On one hand you expect me to accept that your position is undeniable and
>>> overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence yet when I suggest
>>> that there is possibility that living up to Kyoto could bankrupt the
>>> economy you immediately call it a distortion.
>>
>> Whether Kyoto chooses the optimal set of solutions or not is a different
>> subject. I haven't been proclaiming for or against Kyoto.
>>
>> The distortion I'm referring to here is the notion that "it's too late so
>> why bother." Whether you hear it from a radio show or a shill web site
>> set up by the fossil fuels industry.
>>
>> Anyone who is seriously arguing that position will have to show me data
>> to support it. I haven't seen any reason to accept that defeatist
>> attitude, other than protecting the status quo for one industries current
>> business model.
>>
>> What I have seen is the well supported position that a combination of
>> solutions, engaged in now, has a good chance of making a worthwhile
>> difference for future generations.
>>
>>
>>> And therein lies the dilema I have...the teapot calling the kettle black
>>> syndrome
>>
>> Hah! That's it in a nutshell. That is the crux of the PR campaign.
>>
>> Misinformation and amplifying of pretty much any objection into "hold it"
>> status is the goal. To portray the science as if there's a huge
>> controversy. To imply that scientists don't know enough. That the
>> majority of climate scientists are ignorant bullies and finks, and
>> probably hate your momma, while the few scientists who don't agree with
>> the consensus, along with all the lobbyist supported PR flacks and radio
>> talk show hosts are surely gallant unsung heros, bravely fighting for
>> YOU.
>>
>> These are exaggerations meant to help us say, "hey wait, we can't just go
>> rushing off to fix the problem. Let's wait."
>>
>> Bingo. Waiting is the goal of the fossil fuels lobby. That's all they
>> want. Put it off.
>>
>> And if we wait until it really is too late, too bad.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS-polemic! [message #82537 is a reply to message #82535] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 16:34 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> Oh! and one more...probably the most omportant of them all
>
> At least we are both doing something about it!
Here's to doing something! A lot of people are taking it seriously and
working on solutions. Individuals, corporations, communities, states,
and most countries.
The worldwide discussion is now about solutions. That's a very good thing.
I have to disagree with any inference that most climate scientists are
ignorant finger-pointing pots or kettles with an ax to grind. They are,
by and large, hard working, insightful, intelligent people following the
data and testing rational theories, and making conclusions based on the
evidence.
Conclusions based on scientific method and evidence are not mere "he
said/she said" assertions. I think you'll find that most climate
scientists are very careful to not overstate their conclusions. If
someone makes a wild claim that the science is overstated, it's very
likely they are misquoting or misunderstanding the conclusions - in some
cases deliberately so in order to create a negative impression.
I do agree that well funded PR flacks starting with self-serving
conclusions and working backwards to justify them in any way they can,
even if it means distorting the science or exaggerating disagreements,
are indeed pots and kettles both. Beware the FUD campaign, it is well
funded and far reaching.
If you've ever sat in on a meeting with climate scientists (I have)
you'll know that they will question each other intently on data,
methodologies and conclusions. They will question each other and examine
each other's work relentlessly. When conclusions make it through that
sort of peer-reviewed gauntlet, we are wise to pay attention.
Thanks for the discussion, Don!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:461188fc@linux...
>> First off - my apologies, I misunderstood your "its too late..."
>> distortion statement
>>
>> Secondly - my reply still stands...tea pot calling the kettle black (he
>> said she said) - it is relevant
>>
>> Thirdly - I'm glad we both agree this planet is on the fast track to hell
>>
>> Fourthly - I'm glad we both agree there are workable solutions to these
>> problems
>>
>> Fifthly - I am glad we are able to agree to disagree and able to carry on
>> a rational debate
>>
>> and
>>
>> Last but not least...I've enjoyed this discourse...I have learned a lot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46116653$1@linux...
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On a differnet note I was listening to a local talk show and the host
>>>>>> quoted some figures regarding CO2 reduction...one being that we could
>>>>>> close down all the Oil refineries in Alberta and all the manufacturing
>>>>>> in Ontario and we would only reduce our National CO2 output by less
>>>>>> than 50% of the required reductions mandated by the Kyoto accord. As
>>>>>> to how accurate he was, I can't say for sure but he is quoting from
>>>>>> leading economists, scientists etc.
>>>> you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yet another distortion that is making the rounds. The "it's too late
>>>>> anyway so why bother" distortion.
>>>>>
>>>> And who says that what I wrote above is a distortion?
>>>>
>>>> On one hand you expect me to accept that your position is undeniable and
>>>> overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence yet when I suggest
>>>> that there is possibility that living up to Kyoto could bankrupt the
>>>> economy you immediately call it a distortion.
>>> Whether Kyoto chooses the optimal set of solutions or not is a different
>>> subject. I haven't been proclaiming for or against Kyoto.
>>>
>>> The distortion I'm referring to here is the notion that "it's too late so
>>> why bother." Whether you hear it from a radio show or a shill web site
>>> set up by the fossil fuels industry.
>>>
>>> Anyone who is seriously arguing that position will have to show me data
>>> to support it. I haven't seen any reason to accept that defeatist
>>> attitude, other than protecting the status quo for one industries current
>>> business model.
>>>
>>> What I have seen is the well supported position that a combination of
>>> solutions, engaged in now, has a good chance of making a worthwhile
>>> difference for future generations.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And therein lies the dilema I have...the teapot calling the kettle black
>>>> syndrome
>>> Hah! That's it in a nutshell. That is the crux of the PR campaign.
>>>
>>> Misinformation and amplifying of pretty much any objection into "hold it"
>>> status is the goal. To portray the science as if there's a huge
>>> controversy. To imply that scientists don't know enough. That the
>>> majority of climate scientists are ignorant bullies and finks, and
>>> probably hate your momma, while the few scientists who don't agree with
>>> the consensus, along with all the lobbyist supported PR flacks and radio
>>> talk show hosts are surely gallant unsung heros, bravely fighting for
>>> YOU.
>>>
>>> These are exaggerations meant to help us say, "hey wait, we can't just go
>>> rushing off to fix the problem. Let's wait."
>>>
>>> Bingo. Waiting is the goal of the fossil fuels lobby. That's all they
>>> want. Put it off.
>>>
>>> And if we wait until it really is too late, too bad.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82539 is a reply to message #82538] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 17:08 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice article, Don.
Scientific discussions are great. Heck, science is all about identifying
problems, coming up with rational theories and then testing those
theories, multiple times, to see what is true.
The reason there is a consensus on global warming is that questions have
been raised, discussions held, a lot of research done and conclusions
reached.
I wouldn't expect 100% agreement but the amount of agreement is quite high.
Research is ongoing, so anyone with a theory to test had best get on it.
Feeling like the mainstream is wrong? Bring out a new theory and test
it. If data supports it, we have a new mainstream.
But after years of doing just that, the evidence is already strong
enough to suggest three things. One, the planet is warming. Two, human
causes explain it where other causes don't. Three, the risks to our
species is high. And four, waiting for the last couple of scientists to
be satisfied increases the risks far higher.
Since we know that most of the possible solutions have other benefits,
it's no wonder that most governments have concluded we may as well get
started.
Smear campaigns are not necessary between scientists because there is a
better method. If a scientist has an alternate theory, it can be put to
the test. It will succeed or fail.
Industry PR distortion campaigns are a huge distraction, but people can
see through them eventually.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
>
> Here is a very compelling version of what several of you have
> been presenting here. Well written, well-reasoned.
>
> Now, read the comments.
>
> What is important to me is that real scientists are raising real
> issues about this, and the global warming folks are not
> answering the issues, but are claiming consensus...
>
> In other words, shutup.
>
> It all begs the question of who is right, as does the "play it safe"
> crowd.
>
> Consensus is not always right. Look at some of the presidents
> we have elected.
>
> Politics is not science. Smear campaigns are not argument,
> and claiming consensus is an inadequate response to actual
> scientific arguments.
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS -polemic! [message #82557 is a reply to message #82537] |
Tue, 03 April 2007 10:01 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They are,
> by and large, hard working, insightful, intelligent people following the
> data and testing rational theories, and making conclusions based on the
> evidence.
>
I see less and less of this. Scientists, like everyone else, need a means to
support themselves. they have to constantly churn out *something* in order
to get paid by *somebody*.
I know some enviro activists around here who would starve to death if
everything they lobbied for suddenly came true. They suddenly wouldn't have
a pot to piss in and would have to actually get a job (gasp!!!) or would
have to find something else wrong with something in order to justify their
existence. Since getting a job would entail working for some evil
*capitalist* or becoming one themselves, they aren't likely to do this.
These types, IMHO, are easliy as culpable in our failure to address the
energy catastrophe that is approaching as are those in the energy sector.
Deej
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating BS-polemic! [message #82563 is a reply to message #82557] |
Tue, 03 April 2007 11:33 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
> They are,
>> by and large, hard working, insightful, intelligent people following the
>> data and testing rational theories, and making conclusions based on the
>> evidence.
>>
>
> I see less and less of this. Scientists, like everyone else, need a means to
> support themselves. they have to constantly churn out *something* in order
> to get paid by *somebody*.
What do you mean you see less and less of this? Are you talking about
climate scientists? Where and whom?
What is it about making a living that automatically implies selling out?
I'm not following you on that one but I'd like to.
However, I think the blanket demonizing of scientists has got to stop.
It's unfair, inaccurate and obviously a projective, diversionary tactic
by special interests in this case. Better to recognize the problem, the
risks and get to work on solutions.
BTW, I have a lot of respect for people in the long chain polymer
economy. We just have to realize what our true costs are, recognize the
resource limitations of non-renewable economies, and be realistic about
the cost/benefit analysis going forward.
> I know some enviro activists around here who would starve to death if
> everything they lobbied for suddenly came true. They suddenly wouldn't have
> a pot to piss in and would have to actually get a job (gasp!!!) or would
> have to find something else wrong with something in order to justify their
> existence. Since getting a job would entail working for some evil
> *capitalist* or becoming one themselves, they aren't likely to do this.
> These types, IMHO, are easliy as culpable in our failure to address the
> energy catastrophe that is approaching as are those in the energy sector.
So now who are you talking about? What organizations are actively
standing in the way of their own success on their core issues?
I wouldn't expect this to be a defining problem. If a problem gets
solved, then great! Move on to the next one. There is no shortage of
problems that need attention.
I have met great people who strive to live up to laudable ideals in both
corporations and non-profits.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Deej
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 16 07:05:03 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05536 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
