An inconvenient truth

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

An inconvenient truth

Postby Corth » Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:17 am

Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:24 am

Poor crazy Al Gore :( He should go back to looking for Manbearpig.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:52 pm

Seriously.

Corth, two questions. One, did you actually read that article even somewhat objectively and not notice the pervasive lack of science on the skeptics' side? And two, have you read all or any part of the IPCC reports?

Interestingly, Bob Carter (one of the more prominent skeptics and featured scientist in that article) is one of 54 members of the Institute for Public Affairs. The IPA is "a neoliberal organization, funded mainly by big business groups, and pursuing a hard-right, pro-free-market, pro-privatization, pro-deregulation and anti-union agenda."

Potential bias? I don't know, with corporate sponsors like Exxon and Shell I'm still trying to decide.

Here's a link to an article about Bob Carter and about the junk science of global warming skeptics:

http://newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1585&HomepageID=142

Al Gore may be representative of the fringe, but it's a fringe of a growing mainstream consensus based on oceans of peer-reviewed science.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:12 pm

I don't really view global warming as a scientific issue anymore. Global warming is a political platform. It's a partisan issue, divided between the majority of the scientific community and the right-wing politicans backed by energy sponsors who hire fringe scientists to provide cushioning for speeches they've already written. Global warming is only a question because select politicians choose to make it a question.

Global warming is in the same scientific domain as evolution... libraries have been written in support of the concept, but if you dig deep enough, you can probably find some wackjob who'll post some statistics to support whatever view you want to take. Like the article above, which essentially blames global warming on sunspots or some other ridiculous thing.

It's sad to me that scientific truth is becoming a "liberal" viewpoint in the eyes of our theocratic government.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Zabam
Sojourner
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: NM, USA@7000'

Postby Zabam » Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:02 pm

I believe "Global Warming" is a scientific fact. It is the reason we have the atmosphere we do. The junk science portion is whether or not humans affect (or even can effect) the atmospheric process of warming and cooling cycles. Good 'ole Mother Earth is very efficient at self regulation at the global level. I put Gore in with the other junk scientist/alarmist community that went ape over radon and ozone depletion. In the 1970's these same folks were using their platform to state that humans were the cause of rapid cooling of gobal temperatures.

Hmmm...If the polar ice caps are melting doesn't that mean more moisture for percipitation....meaning more snowfall in the temperate regions......meaning more snow at higher elevations......meaning an eventual expansion of temperate zone glaciers.....leading to an eventual ice age?

I wish the price of gas would go down, so I can better do my part to help Mother Nature along.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby daggaz » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:08 pm

Hmm... as far as I have understood it, the real debate isn't whether global warming is happening; it is.

It isn't whether industrialization has an effect; it does.

It is whether or not we affect the climate at a rate which isn't negligble when compared to other natural processes, especially solar radiation flux as this is the key factor and is by all means not constant.

Other key questions remain as well, namely 'What are the ultimate effects and how long will they last?' And, 'Can we even do anything about it, regardless of the causes?"

Of course, anybody who thinks limiting industrial emmissions (as well as in the private sector, at least for us american oil-hogs) is a waste of time, based simply on inconclusive scientific studies, isn't looking at the entire picture.

Just take a look at photos of the eastern united states during the seventies, or pics of Beijing right now. EWWW! Not to mention the biggest threat of all, Peak Oil.

It would be a real smart idea to stop burning all that coal and oil as soon as possible.


Oh and Zabam... umm.. ozone depletion was hardly 'junk science,' nor was the hype around it unwarranted. It was a real and dangerous threat, and thanks to world wide attention, we got pretty much the whole world to stop using CFC's and the effect can already be measured today, although theories predict it will take a few more decades for high altitude ozone levels to return to 'normal' levels. Personally, I still use sunscreen.

As far as Radon, heh... its a rather pesky problem here in Denmark, as the ground (ancient chalky seabed) is laden with radon. There are whole areas where the problem is so bad, it is illegal to convert basements into sleeping areas, and radon detectors are still mandatory.

As far as your theory of less ice = more water = more snow = more ice at the poles... Just because there is more water, why should it fall as snow, especially if the temperature has gone up? And what effect would snow in the mountains in the distant temperate zones have on precipitation in the poles, if air and especially ocean temperatures have risen too much... (the latest japanese study shows that rising sea water temperatures are to blame for the recent and drastic decrease of ice in the antarctic).

A more logical theory goes along the lines that the increase in temperature leads to more water vapor, both increases then lead to more drastic weather patterns. Hurricanes aside, the increase in water vapor means an increase in cloud cover, which is remarkably effective at reflecting solar radiation across a very broad range of bandwidths. This in turn begins drastically cooling the earth, tho even the fastest model predicts several decades needed to swing from the onset of cooling, to the coldest temperature, and back to normal again, resetting ocean temperatures and currents. Most scientists tend to lean towards it taking on the order of thousands of years, as this is twice evident in the recent geological record. (this is of course a very generalized, cut-down version of one of the main theories. The actual theory is of course far more detailed with far more variables and is more than certaintly incomplete.)
Zabam
Sojourner
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: NM, USA@7000'

Postby Zabam » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:14 pm

Ozone is a very reactive radical and does not last very long in any environmental environment. Attributing the O3 flux to CFCs was an exprapolation of laboratory experiments, not based on real sampling data. Actually, sampling determined the lack of F ions in the upper atmosphere. There was a considerable amount of Cl ions found and this was touted as proof the CFCs were reaching the O3 and destroying it. In fact approx 99.9% of the Cl ions are attributed to violent updraft over large bodies of salt water, e.g. seaspouts and to volcanic action.

The thing that always puzzeled me was why we did not see actual O3 reduction in urban environments. The EPA has a system of grading air quality in USA cities my the O3 levels (produced by brown smog and photochemical reactions). This O3 production was at the same point of origin of CFC production (urban areas). Why didn't we see the CFC-O3 interaction at these point of origin?


Radon is also extrapolated data from Uranium miners of 4 western USA states. Working Levels (a technical term) of Rn exposure was estimated over the occupational lifetime of this population then compared to the end result of of lung cancer. The study took no other exposure into concern and based the entire resultant due to the estimated Rn levels. Then this was exprapolated to the entire US population. It is kind of like saying the coal miners of Pennsylvania all died of Rn exposure with no account of exposures to silicates or coal dust. The EPA calculated that 25k lung cancer deaths were attributed to Rn each year....thats about 100%. I know a little bit about Rn as I was involved with some of the first environment compliance testing done in the US (Colorado, 1987). Show me a death certificate where the POD was Rn exposure, and the beer is on me.

There have been studies that show the complet opposite effect of Rn exposure done in Finland, China, Brazil, etc. Do a Google search on "Radiation Hormesis Study" and Radon. You might be surprised.

What are the Rn typical levels found in Denmark. I'm suprised that it is high. Normally, sedimentry formations are not high yield Rn producers. I bet you guys have granite intrusion into that strata that is producing any high levels of Rn.

Don't get me wrong, I kinda appraciate the scare and propogation of that fear within the population. It helps out in the job market and compensation levels for me 8)
Ruxur
Sojourner
Posts: 749
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:39 pm
Location: Anniston, Alabama

Postby Ruxur » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:45 pm

you are all fuckheads


go roll a druid
Cofen group-says 'wtf, why am i missing a cursed khanjari?'
Alendar group-says 'i r rednek i can only afford the monitor i have mud on and the broken monitor under it'
Nonox tells you 'i think someone casted 'power word gay' on pril'
Malacar ASSOC:: 'must... mp...soon...underwear...cringing...at...oncoming...onslaught...'
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:08 pm

what happen, if they already have a druid?
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:11 pm

I just came across an AP article today with the title: "Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science

Here are a few quotes:

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

But, that's just the AP science writer and quotes from top researchers in their field. Someone should find a wingnut from a no-name school to refute this.

Oh wait, there's the administration...

President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:57 pm

Beat me to the link.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

ok

Postby muma » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:20 pm

do you think all the concrete we have on the earth has anything to do with global warming?

my bro. and his gf live in phoenix and they said that since they built cities and put all that concrete there in the desert, that the temperatures have increased by 20% because of the concrete soaking in the sun all day.

i know global warming has to do with like carbon dioxide or monoxide or whatever, but i just wondered if other things could factor in too.
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:34 pm

See.. heres the thing..

I pretty much agree with everyone else that the earth is getting warmer..

And I have no idea whatsoever if human activity is significantly impacting the increase in temperature...

And I wish that there were experts that I can trust one way or another. But it seems like such a politicized issue that without researching in depth the background (both political and expertise) of any scientist who makes a statement concerning the matter, I don't know whether or not to trust a statement.

Maybe its just me.. but what I would truly love to see is a trial. An adversarial proceeding with both sides making their case before a disinterested jury of scientists who do not pretend to hold any expertise in climate change.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ok

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:07 am

muma wrote:i know global warming has to do with like carbon dioxide or monoxide or whatever, but i just wondered if other things could factor in too.


You are exactly correct. The big issue of global warming is going to be what to do about it.

If we commit ourselves to only one solution and it turns out to be completely off, not only have we wasted our time and our money, we could also have made things worse.

The theory of global warming contributes the rise in 'surface' temperatures (read as: the millimeter of matter that isn't in gaseous form on the very surface of the earth) to manmade greenhouse gasses.

People complain about our government doing things without 'knowing the facts.'

The only fact is that we know that we don't know enough about weather patterns, atmospheric composition, or natural mechanical cycles to tell exactly what causes the planet to get warmer (nevermind the fact we're constantly baking in the sun.)

That's the real inconvenient truth.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:59 pm

See, this is what I'm talking about...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:34 pm

That press release is as partisan as any other argument so far. When "exposing" Robert Correll's "left-leaning" sponsorship, Morano directs the reader to www.junkscience.com, a blog published by Stephen J. Malloy, columnist for Fox News and investment advisor for the far-right Free Enterprise Action Fund. Seriously. This is your source?

We then go on to list out a fistfull of partisan counter-arguments, drawn neatly from republican publications and right-wing pocket scientists. First you have Bob Carter, who works with Tech Central Station. In 2003, TCS received a grant of $90,000 from Exxon-Mobil for "Climate Change Support" funding. This grant accounted for almost 2/3rds of the foundation's $150,000 income in 2003.

Next up is Richard Lindzen, also associated with Tech Central Station. In addition, he works with the Cato Institute, which has received $90,000 of Exxon's money to fund its climate research since 1998. Dr. Lindzen also works with the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, an organization that is $750,000 deep into Exxon's pocket. Finally, he associates with the George C. Marshall Institute, which is a nice segue into our next contestant.

Roy Spencer also works for the George C. Marshall Institute, an organization whose Global Climate Change Program was granted $115,000 by Exxon-Mobil in 2005, and over $630,000 since 1998.

Oddly enough Corth, the article you quoted is exactly what the rest of us are talking about too. Just, not for the reasons you are.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:31 pm

Oddly enough, Ragorn, I am not linking anything for the purpose of making an argument. This is probably the one issue where I have no opinion on who is right. I don't feel like I am qualified to make my own conclusions based on the scientific evidence, and everyone who is trying to convince me has a political agenda. There needs to be a better way of getting to the bottom of this. The link I posted before was more politicized arguments.. this time going the other way. It never seems to end.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:41 am

This is an interesting topic that a lot of people are talking about. Myself, I think most everyone is asking the wrong question. The question is not really what are we doing to create global warming. It is pretty evident that some kind of swing in temperature is happening. The better question is, how do we stop or reverse global warming without destroying our economy?

Is it possible to create a carbon sink to remove warming agents from the atmosphere? Yes, it is. With that in mind, really this global warming crisis is just a good headline to get people worked up. It really is not a big deal. We as a species are more than capable of figuring this out like we've solved lots of other problems.

Lath
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:38 am

Lathander wrote: We as a species are more than capable of figuring this out like we've solved lots of other problems.
Lath


Like AIDS, cancer, and the common cold. WE IS SMERT!
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:13 am

Ragorn wrote:That press release is as partisan as any other argument so far. When "exposing" Robert Correll's "left-leaning" sponsorship, Morano directs the reader to www.junkscience.com, a blog published by Stephen J. Malloy, columnist for Fox News and investment advisor for the far-right Free Enterprise Action Fund. Seriously. This is your source?

We then go on to list out a fistfull of partisan counter-arguments, drawn neatly from republican publications and right-wing pocket scientists. First you have Bob Carter, who works with Tech Central Station. In 2003, TCS received a grant of $90,000 from Exxon-Mobil for "Climate Change Support" funding. This grant accounted for almost 2/3rds of the foundation's $150,000 income in 2003.

Next up is Richard Lindzen, also associated with Tech Central Station. In addition, he works with the Cato Institute, which has received $90,000 of Exxon's money to fund its climate research since 1998. Dr. Lindzen also works with the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, an organization that is $750,000 deep into Exxon's pocket. Finally, he associates with the George C. Marshall Institute, which is a nice segue into our next contestant.

Roy Spencer also works for the George C. Marshall Institute, an organization whose Global Climate Change Program was granted $115,000 by Exxon-Mobil in 2005, and over $630,000 since 1998.

Oddly enough Corth, the article you quoted is exactly what the rest of us are talking about too. Just, not for the reasons you are.


At least the sources are listed, unlike the AP's article.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:53 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:At least the sources are listed, unlike the AP's article.


The fact that the sources are so patently partisan does nothing to establish credibility for the article. The release would have held more weight with unnamed sources than with pocket scientists giving the party line. With unnamed sources, I would question their credibility. Now I know they're full of crap.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:35 am

Ragorn wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:At least the sources are listed, unlike the AP's article.


The fact that the sources are so patently partisan does nothing to establish credibility for the article. The release would have held more weight with unnamed sources than with pocket scientists giving the party line. With unnamed sources, I would question their credibility. Now I know they're full of crap.


Sure, but you have to wonder how bad the other side's sources are that they needed to hide them.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:12 am

Better to wonder than know for sure.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Gruy
Sojourner
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Gruy » Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:35 am

actually.. much of the stuff here depends on where your getting the info.. yes the globe is warming but some scientists claim that it has happened before and is acutally part of a much larger cycle..

supposedly a long time ago the ice caps had melted and as some have said here already once the north atlantic current is changed or stopped weather systems would go insane assuming that the overall water tempreature in the ocean in those area's dropped so many degree's thus causing another ice age basically.

but whether or not this has happened before or not who knows.. in my opinion man isint making that big an effect on the course of the planet warming but according to scientific studies the over all tempreature of the earth has increase 1 degree which would i assume over the next 100-200 years mabye increase 1 or 2 more degree's.

so whether or not the type of climate change has happened before or not it is inevidable that it will happen this time even if man eliminates the use of fossil fuels alltogether starting right now this is a change that is in motion and undoubtedly run its course over the next couple hundred years.

Perhaps the cease of using fossil fuels all together may slow this change im pretty sure we are still looking at one eventually ending with an ice age.
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Postby ssar » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:29 am

There is significant evidence of climate change adversely affecting our home planet in this era, such that it likely threatens our very race's existence in similar current numbers within the next few or even this generation(s).

There is an amazingly huge amount of debate as to the human race's actions playing a significant part in the worsening of this (relatively recent) global climate change. And honestly, there is way too much arguing about a whole lot of petty details/claims/points etc.

Those in power all around the world should significantly reallocate much less resources to "defence" forces, weapons & guns, to research into applying any modern technologies (and we are in an era of fantastic technological development in a huge range of fields) to retarding the detrimental climate changes and preserving our planet in it's entirety for as many future generations as possible, as well as realizing superluminal travel to give us a good chance of finding an alternative appropriate home planet.

Personally I beleive that much of the human race's industrial, environmental/ecological destruction activity in the last century have contributed to unnaturally accelerating the detrimental effects of climate change (among other things).
But, I also respect the opinions that such acceleration may be more closely approaching insignificant levels in the grand scheme of things than many of the "doomsayers" on this subject would like to promote.

Regardless of the human race's actual real net effect on our planet in a broad sense, I beleive it should be a priority for us to research it heavily in all aspects and invest heavily in technological advancement toward promoting many generations of longevity for a healthy planet earth (as well as superluminal travel/observation).
BEER
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:20 am

Actually, global warmin is not even certain. In addition, if one did accept the fact that there might be global warming, there is even less data that this is the result of humans. Furthermore, if one accepts that there is global warming, and also accepts that humans are the main cause, many areas will actually benefit from higher average temperatures.

Environmentalism is the new communism.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:43 am

Everything is a cycle, life and death .. who was around when the world was one landmass, who was around during glaciers, or who had to run from dinosaurs? Who studied global warming then? Who freaked out when the HUGE masses of ice started melting and who/what was to blame? This could be what was planned for this Universe/planet but who the hell can we ask .. o we can't, we assume ..

I do believe in being environmentally responsible, use less toxins, preserve natural resources, find cleaner ways to do things .. not because of global warming, but because of rising populations and where the hell is it all going to come from in another 50 years when the population has doubled again .. what happens when allt he landfills are full? Hehe visions of Sim City and just throwing it in the ocean to start NEW landmasses .. hehe
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:35 pm

I just don't understand people thinking humans are incapable of affecting the environment for some reason.

Yeah, the planet is big. We're still throwing a lot of shit into the air that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for us. Assuming that will have no effect is simply naive.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:35 pm

Assuming that humans have a greater impact on the world than termites, ants and cows is also naive. The most famous slide from Gore's movie is the one where you have world temperature and carbon plotted together. The idea is that the carbon is creating the temperature. Many actually argue that a higher temperature, within reason, allows more life to live on the earth creating more carbon in the air from respiration and other processes.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:25 pm

Lathander wrote:Assuming that humans have a greater impact on the world than termites, ants and cows is also naive. The most famous slide from Gore's movie is the one where you have world temperature and carbon plotted together. The idea is that the carbon is creating the temperature. Many actually argue that a higher temperature, within reason, allows more life to live on the earth creating more carbon in the air from respiration and other processes.


And if the carbon is increasing the tempurature, or any of the other random crap we're tossing up, it just means we've started a vicious cycle.

The point is we don't have to put out more CO2 than all the cow farts combined, we just have to put out enough to tip the balance.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:50 pm

A gigantic meteor the size of Spain hit the land in the area that is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating said Gulf and plummeting the world into the abyss. Lives perished, geography changed.

I'm here at my computer writing this, many years later.

Thinking man is stronger than God, or Nature, is called Pride.


P.S. I don't litter, I recycle, I try to be a good human being. I also don't believe anything said by politicians, actors, and liars. Oh, sorry, I repeated myself.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:02 pm

I agree with Adriorn. This "Chicken Little" attitude is already getting old. We're told that Ethanol is the answer to global warming, but it actually makes it worse. People decide that wind power is a good idea and now the environmentalists decide that it is bad now.

Sarvis, as you said, "if". The simple thing is we don't know if carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature. Furthermore, we don't know if the temperature is even going up. 35 years ago, the fear was global cooling. Everyone "knew" it was happening. It didn't. Does it make sense to screw up the economy for the sake of some wild goose chase? Our politicians are already screwing things up enough with our energy policy by making our food supply start to be repriced as a fuel supply.
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:24 am

I think we should support global warming and each do our bit in increase our personal carbon stamp. My fingers were so freaking cold this morning mudding the typo rate was ludicrous. Besides, seeing dolphins swim past my window would be so cool, not to mention I would be closer to the beach!
Arishae group-says 'mah sunray brings all the boys to the yard'
Shadow Scream
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:12 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:A gigantic meteor the size of Spain hit the land in the area that is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating said Gulf and plummeting the world into the abyss. Lives perished, geography changed.

I'm here at my computer writing this, many years later.

Thinking man is stronger than God, or Nature, is called Pride.


P.S. I don't litter, I recycle, I try to be a good human being. I also don't believe anything said by politicians, actors, and liars. Oh, sorry, I repeated myself.


So because a rock fell from the sky, man is incapable of doing something harmful to his environment? You wanna run through the logic on that a second time, maybe?

By the way, we can and HAVE had negative effects on the environment before. Remember the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Ozone_depletion">ozone layer?</a> Manmade chemicals were depleting it, and now that we legislated those chemicals more or less out of production that depletion has slowed down. I've even seen some people claim the ozone layer is regenerating now.

So yes, a rock could fall from the sky tomorrow and kill us all. That doesn't mean we can't affect the environment ourselves. Frankly, it shows nothing at all about our capabilities.


<b>Lathander</b>

Sarvis, as you said, "if". The simple thing is we don't know if carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature.


The peer reviewed science papers would like to disagree with you. What do you have on your side? Oh, right... Fox news and a bunch of old guys making a fortune selling oil. I'm sure there's no reason they'd spread FUD to ensure their own profits, right?

Furthermore, we don't know if the temperature is even going up.


Yes, we do. 35 years ago it was just a media scare with little support from scientists. Newsweek even admits that about their own "Global Cooling" article: "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/page/2/

So no, not "everyone" knew it was happening. In fact, most scientists didn't think it was.

Does it make sense to screw up the economy for the sake of some wild goose chase? Our politicians are already screwing things up enough with our energy policy by making our food supply start to be repriced as a fuel supply.


Yeah! No propaganda there! We must choose between the "uncertain" effects man is having on the environment and having a healthy economy! No other options. Nope. Nuh-uh.

I bet people like you were saying the same thing when CFCs got banned. Yet here we are, economy still healthy even despite Bush.

Look, no one here wants our economy destroyed. We want some degree of caution and investigation into better technologies so that our planet <i>doesn't</i> get destroyed. Last I checked, technological progress was actually pretty damned good for the economy.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:03 pm

Sarvis wrote:So because a rock fell from the sky, man is incapable of doing something harmful to his environment? You wanna run through the logic on that a second time, maybe?


Heh, nope. I really shouldn't have too.

Sarvis wrote:So yes, a rock could fall from the sky tomorrow and kill us all. That doesn't mean we can't affect the environment ourselves. Frankly, it shows nothing at all about our capabilities.


So what exactly does show our capabilities? Hiroshima & Nagasaki? There's a damn good example right? Nuclear waste, radiation, etc. Yet last I checkedthey were doing just fine. You know a good way to help build a coral reef? Sink a huge rusty ship and let it sit at the bottom for awhile. It's done here all the time.

Like I said, I don't litter, I recycle, etc. I don't use 203 gallons of pesticides because I have some weeds in the yard. On the other hand, this morning I killed a cockroach that was trying to enter my home. At first I thought about the damage I was causing the environment, and about man's capabilities over it. Then I reconsidered.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:26 pm

I still fail to see the relation here. Are you saying that we can't cause global warming because nuclear bombs failed to permanently destroy Japan? Or are you saying that global warming may cause a lot of damage, but so what?

Neither is really sensible. One is just bad logic, and the other is a poor rationalization.

It doesn't show that we aren't capable of causing global warming, and if we can prevent all the damage it would cause then we should... even if we'd adapt afterwards. You'll note that we haven't actually used a nuke SINCE Japan, even though they "got over it."
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:12 pm

Hmm, I haven't actually mentioned global warming in any of my posts. My posts have all dealt with the idiotic belief that man can actually "destroy" the world. Sure, if one year we can create a ribbon campaign to wipe out all the elephants (Destroy Dumbo?), I'm sure we could. But believing we can do long-term (and here's the hard leap for some to make, I know) damage to the planet is, like I said before, called Pride.

My examples were about how man (or a big frigging rock) can do massive "damage" to the world, but in the long term (or in a few years) Nature finds a way to heal itself. I mean, that's part of Evolution no?

You also mentioned that the meteor example didn't show "nothing at all about our capabilities", so I gave examples of our capabilities to do damage to the environment, i.e. nukes and junk. If you still "fail to see the relation here", then I really can't do more.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:40 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Hmm, I haven't actually mentioned global warming in any of my posts. My posts have all dealt with the idiotic belief that man can actually "destroy" the world. Sure, if one year we can create a ribbon campaign to wipe out all the elephants (Destroy Dumbo?), I'm sure we could. But believing we can do long-term (and here's the hard leap for some to make, I know) damage to the planet is, like I said before, called Pride.

My examples were about how man (or a big frigging rock) can do massive "damage" to the world, but in the long term (or in a few years) Nature finds a way to heal itself. I mean, that's part of Evolution no?

You also mentioned that the meteor example didn't show "nothing at all about our capabilities", so I gave examples of our capabilities to do damage to the environment, i.e. nukes and junk. If you still "fail to see the relation here", then I really can't do more.


I failed to see the relation because you aren't even talking about the same thing the rest of us our. I posted saying we can affect the planet and you apparently went off saying we could never destroy the planet. Yeah... ok then.

We clearly can <i>affect</i> the planet (see the Ozone Layer, the rainforests, or <a href="http://faculty.uaeu.ac.ae/myagoub/Remote2/palm_island_sept9_2003_dg.jpg">Palm Islands</a> to see what our "Pride" can really do.

No one is saying we can destroy the planet here, but we can certainly cause enough of a change to create disasterous consequences for ourselves and other species.

So yeah. None of your posts were about global warming, even though that's what everyone else is talking about. To make matters worse you somehow came to the conclusion that I was saying we were going to destroy the planet, when I never said that and I don't think anyone has. Sorry for not seeing the "relation" there.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:30 pm

Of course Adriorn's posts were about global warming, you can't simply read them. The Earth goes through different cycles. For example, the water level on the planet has both been higher and lower in the past than it is now. Humans had nothing to do with that. We do not truly understand the Earth's various systems. Just look at our inability to accurately predict the weather. 2005 was a record year for hurricanes. There was a rush to blame Global Warming and predict we would have a similar year in 2006. 2006 ended up being fairly quiet.

The true problem is the hysterics that look at the present and have to project that into the future. In the process, they have to find something that explains it. The real agenda of the environmentalist is to stop advancement and growth.

There have been lots of predictions for global warming in the last 20 years, and they have all been wrong. The average temperature might have gone up a few tenths of a degree, but that is over a very limited time period. We only have temperatures for the last 100 years or so, which is no where near enough to really build a model.

CFC's are a good example of a lack of critical thinking. See CFC's do not just destroy ozone (O3 to O2), they also act as a coolant in the upper atmosphere. One could argue if there was global warming, it is because we got rid of CFC's. Also, there was never any proof that CFC's were actually getting into the upper atmosphere. Finally, ozone is created by sunlight/energy hitting O2 in the upper atmosphere. Ozone was not in any danger. Alot of talk about the poles, but back then there was a pretty powerful low over the south pole which made the "hole" worse. Ozone holes are natural over the poles because they receive less sunlight.

You seem to have swallowed this hype hook, line and sinker, so arguing with you is pretty point less as you really can't think for yourself.
Guardias
Sojourner
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Contact:

Postby Guardias » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:48 pm

First off Lathandar yer wrong. CFCs bond with the O3 in the atmosphere and deplete the ozone layer which is that nice layer of gasses that protects us from major portion of the suns radiation and as such would increase temperature.

Secondly yes the earth goes through natural warm and cold phases, however what generally takes thousands of years, Ie: the last Ice age was 10,000 years ago, in the middle ages we had a cooling trend that is referred to as the little ice ages, even this tiny dip in temperature took over 500 years to completely balance out. Current green house gas emissions have sped up the process of global warming. It can clearly be seen in the northern and southern climates. Greenland's ice sheets have shrunk by over 50% and the winters in Alaska are becoming warmer and more dangerous to both wildlife and humans. In Antarctica icebergs larger than Rhode Island have been falling off into the ocean, not only this but the massive amount of fresh water being dumped into the Northern Atlantic is starting to affect the Gulf Stream Current. Overall yes the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, but human activity has nudged the natural cycle into overdrive.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:42 pm

Lathander wrote:Of course Adriorn's posts were about global warming, you can't simply read them.

*snip*

You seem to have swallowed this hype hook, line and sinker, so arguing with you is pretty point less as you really can't think for yourself.


Again resorting to ad hominem Lath?

Trying to call me out on my critical thinking abilities is laughable after claiming that Adriorn was talking about global warming when he himself said he was not. You are so out of touch with reality that you can't even register what you witnessed without coloring it to suit your agenda.

Yet we're supposed to believe your claims of "hysterics" over peer reviewed science journals? By the way, the people who write those make a living by inventing new technologies and researching new ideas. I'm pretty sure they don't want to stop doing that, as you claim.

But maybe you're right, and you can show me some evidence of most scientists advocating horse and buggy use or something. Try the Ahmish science community!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:39 am

CFC stands for chlorofluorocarbon. Basically, the fear is the chlorine gets shed by the CFC when hit by sunlight. Then the Cl atom bonds with a oxygen atom taking away that atom to form ozone with an O2. ClO is formed and degrades by sunlight with the O bonding with another O to form O2 and a free Cl.

The issue is, no one ever proved that this lowered the overall amount of ozone. That O2 at the end can then bond with another O to form O3 or ozone. Granted, the CFC might slow the process, but not by much. This is a zero sum system.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:46 am

Warming is going on all through our solar system. We don't know if this is from the sun or where it is coming from. Also, you can't call it global warming because it could easily be some small variation. We simply do not have enough data to even say if the overall pattern is warming or cooling. To act with no data is silly and dangerous. There is no causal proof that so called greenhouse emissions is doing anything. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, should we ban that?

As I said before, let's go ahead and assume their is a warming trend. There are a ton of positives. One, more food can be grown by temperatures rising. Farmers in Greenland actually are excited about the idea of warming. Forecasts call for Greenland's economy to grow quite a bit if global warming is true. Also, new areas for gas and oil are opening up in the artic for example if the ice retreats. Finally, trade around the pole will also improve things.

My real issue is the "Chicken Little" mentality of the sky is falling. For most folks looking at this board, if global warming is true, it will be a benefit for them.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:03 am

Sarvis wrote:To make matters worse you somehow came to the conclusion that I was saying we were going to destroy the planet, when I never said that...


Wait, so then global warming won't be destroying the planet? Oh, that's good then! I guess I misunderstood change in environment for global catastrophe. Here's an example:

Sarvis wrote:we can certainly cause enough of a change to create disasterous consequences for ourselves and other species


I apologize though, I certainly do not like putting words in people's mouths when they never really said them. Here's an example of what I mean:

Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Hmm, I haven't actually mentioned global warming in any of my posts.


I failed to see the relation because you aren't even talking about the same thing the rest of us our.

So yeah. None of your posts were about global warming, even though that's what everyone else is talking about.


If you read carefully, you'll notice the use of the word "mentioned" as opposed to "not talking about" global warming, which I never actually said. It's nice to read between the lines.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:23 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:To make matters worse you somehow came to the conclusion that I was saying we were going to destroy the planet, when I never said that...


Wait, so then global warming won't be destroying the planet? Oh, that's good then! I guess I misunderstood change in environment for global catastrophe. Here's an example:


Sarvis wrote:we can certainly cause enough of a change to create disasterous consequences for ourselves and other species



An example of what, exactly? Seriously. A life sentence in jail is a pretty disasterous consequence for commiting crime, but if I said murdering someone had disasterous consequences would you assume I meant a death penalty?

That's exactly the kind of interpretation you just made on my statement. Then you're going to accuse me of reading between the lines? I explained how I couldn't understand your logic applying to global warming, and you say you "never mentioned" global warming... so I'm supposed to interperet that some other way? Jesus people, say what you mean... don't spout random crap and expect everyone to figure it out.

It's just as bad as leaping to conclusions about what someone did say.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:11 am

Lathander wrote:CFC stands for chlorofluorocarbon. Basically, the fear is the chlorine gets shed by the CFC when hit by sunlight. Then the Cl atom bonds with a oxygen atom taking away that atom to form ozone with an O2. ClO is formed and degrades by sunlight with the O bonding with another O to form O2 and a free Cl.

The issue is, no one ever proved that this lowered the overall amount of ozone. That O2 at the end can then bond with another O to form O3 or ozone. Granted, the CFC might slow the process, but not by much. This is a zero sum system.


Right, no one ever proved it according to you. We just saw the effects, and we're seeing the ozone layer damage slow down now that we stopped using them.

But yeah, the reasonable assumption is that cause and effect don't exist. I see how that works.

Remember, humans are incapable of having an effect on the environment. we can do absolutely anything we want without consequences.

Warming is going on all through our solar system. We don't know if this is from the sun or where it is coming from. Also, you can't call it global warming because it could easily be some small variation. We simply do not have enough data to even say if the overall pattern is warming or cooling. To act with no data is silly and dangerous. There is no causal proof that so called greenhouse emissions is doing anything. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, should we ban that?

As I said before, let's go ahead and assume their is a warming trend. There are a ton of positives. One, more food can be grown by temperatures rising. Farmers in Greenland actually are excited about the idea of warming. Forecasts call for Greenland's economy to grow quite a bit if global warming is true. Also, new areas for gas and oil are opening up in the artic for example if the ice retreats. Finally, trade around the pole will also improve things.

My real issue is the "Chicken Little" mentality of the sky is falling. For most folks looking at this board, if global warming is true, it will be a benefit for them.


The thing is, we DO have data. You just want to ignore it because of half-baked conspiracy theories. Still waiting to see scientists recommend ditching all our technology btw!


Look, this'll be my last post since you're not going to listen anyway. But we're also back to where we started:

Why do you think humans can't affect the environment? Do you really, really think we can do absolutely anything and it'll all just work out somehow? Do I need to remind you that God kicked us OUT of Paradise or something? You can cry all you want about us not having data (because you're ignoring it) but the simple truth is that we are adding gases to the atmosphere. You need to show that adding something to a system does not change it.

Good luck.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Postby ssar » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:09 am

Lathander wrote:The real agenda of the environmentalist is to stop advancement and growth.


No it's not.

This statement may be somewhat true if it were changed to:

"The real agenda of some extreme self & greed-driven environmentalists may appear to some to be to stop advancement and growth, though this small percentage of total supporters of environmental preservation & protection represents just a few 'bad apples' and should largely be ignored when obviously directing thier efforts away from genuinely useful activity."

The actual real agenda of most genuine environmentalists is to achieve satisfaction that they, and a significant percentage of thier fellow man have made significant efforts toward protecting and preserving the environment in all it's beauty & wonder, in which we live.
BEER
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:41 pm

Some people scare me.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:43 pm

The issue here isn't whether we can cause permanent and irreparable damage to the planet or the ecosphere. We could do that if we really wanted to... we have enough nuclear arms to irradiate the entire planet and kill everything that lives. But I think we're talking about destruction on a more subtle scale.
A gigantic meteor the size of Spain hit the land in the area that is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating said Gulf and plummeting the world into the abyss. Lives perished, geography changed.

I'm here at my computer writing this, many years later.

Right. It takes a LOT to destroy an entire planet, but that's not really the point. What we care about is preventing an event that ends human life on Earth. If we screw up the environment badly enough to end human life, it won't be much of a consolation to me that the cockroaches and migratory birds managed to survive. But we're a long way off from that scenario in any case, and it's more useful to talk about the intermediate effects of global warming rather than focusing on the Chicken Little "end of all life" scenario.

The planet IS warming. The fact that global warming is a physical trend isn't in dispute except with the most radical deniers. The issues are whether we're causing it, whether we can stop it, and whether it matters enough to bother. I have my own beliefs on the matter, and I think I fall somewhat left of center... I think the problem is largely ours, and I think it's going to have some serious negative impact, but I'm not ready to declare mandatory recycling and compulsory hybrid cars for everybody. Getting rid of CFCs and regulating vehicle emission is a good thing, and it's hard for me to understand how anyone can be against these ideas UNLESS they have a financial stake in aerosol or big cars.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:58 pm

If you were directly involved in scientific academia you would certainly be aware of the fact that most fields are experiencing unprecedented leaps in their knowledge bases. Take cosmology for instance. The biggest factor in these rapid advances is computational technology. Just think about life a mere twenty years ago. How hard science was even done without computers is a bigger mystery to me than something like global warming!

So, for global warming in particular, one needs to look at the way the science is being conducted. The most promising technology also happens to be the most problematic and leaves the rhetorical door open for conspiratorial arguments like Lathanders.

Climate modeling is one of the most rapidly evolving and computer-intensive fields in modern science. It is the most significant way of proving or even exploring climate change. As historical data comes in and models are getting better at replicating past trends, we are better able to predict future trends. As the IPCC reports clearly state, the models are now good enough that a reasonable person cannot overlook their destructive predictions.

Of course, the inherent predictive nature of the climate models allows skeptics to show 'holes' or 'doubt' in these predictions. The problem being that if, as a species, we sit around and wait for the models to be 'conclusive' to some much higher level, we risk having waited too long to change the course.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests