|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2001 : 13:08:18 [Permalink]
|
OK, I understand the controversy over global warming and whether or not it is happening. However, whether science has drawn that conclusion or not, aren't we better taking measures now than waiting until we *know* whether industrialisation is the cause or not. If not (i.e. natural cycles), then there's not a lot we can do and no harm done, if it is industrialisation causing excessive greenhouse gasses then we have taken at least preliminary steps.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 13:10:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In fact, I find his tone much more civil than your comments about those who are not 'believers' (I'm not saying this derogatorily; it's the best word I can think of) in global warming are being ignorant.
::Blinks::
When did I say this? Please post or direct me to my post when I said this...
Are people mistaking someone else's name for mine?
I find this whole thing laughable because I am truly on the fence as global warming is concern. Yes, I think it's a problem, but I think it is a solvable problem and I think we will solve it. I'm certainty not a doomsayer.
I've gone back and looked at ALL my posts on global warming and I've never called anybody ignorant. I responded to Otomo TWICE and haven't ever responded to Wildcat directly. So I don't understand where I was ever not civil towards him... In fact I think my comment about Steve A. response to Wildcat was conciliatory, it sure was meant to be...
If my comments were ever non-civil (I don't believe any of them were, and I've reread all of them) it was because people were jumping to conclusions (and I see you have too) about how I feel about global warming. Go back and read Otomo's post telling me to go see a shrink because I asked him for information, and you'll see why I'm a bit miffed.
I have never, to my knowledge, said that "non-believers" in global warming are ignorant, and if you understood me to be saying that, you misunderstood me.
My main complaint with this bunch is their attitude, and yes, I believe "junk science" is an insult to the many people who do research on this subject. Perhaps your definition of "junk science" is different then mine. And yes, I believe people are being idiots by calling it junk science and handwaving it away. But I do NOT think they are idiots just because they don't agree that it is happening. I am willing to listen to them and WANT to hear their evidence.
The only factual remark I made about global warming at all, is that Antarctica is breaking up. I then went back and retracted that remark and said "it appears to be breaking up". If you don't agree with that, fine. But cite a credible source that says its not breaking up, and don't accuse the scientists who say it does appear to be breaking up of junk science.
I want information as to why and how junk science was involved, not insults... Is this too much to ask for?
Edited by - Rift on 06/29/2001 13:19:03
Edited by - Rift on 06/29/2001 13:20:11 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 13:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Garrette, please read Guass's response. There is where I see the terms your responding to. I went back to read Rift's posts and I don't see where he as responded to anyone derogatorily.
Now, I don't know enough about the controversy to take one side or the other. However, if it is agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that industrialized nations are dumping into the atmosphere and it might contribute to the problem of warming. Where's the harm in practicing a little prevention? Better that than finding out we could have given ourselves another 10 years or more to work on a solution.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 14:06:04 [Permalink]
|
I wish this thing didn't say when you make edits to your own posts...
Does everybody really need to know what a horrible speller I am? :)
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 14:19:36 [Permalink]
|
It seems I owe you an apology, Rift. I'm sorry. I was remembering Gauss' response. Thanks, Trish.
My only real issue, though, was with your inclusion of Wildcat's name with Otomo and Sequester. I agree with your analysis on them. Wildcat may indeed be wrong (as may I); I just find his tone to be reasonable whereas Otomo and Sequester are not (which is a shame because Otomo at least shows some intelligence).
I also apologize if I jumped the gun on assuming you're a supporter of the global warming theory. (I should go back and track down someone's post on BA about separating any debates into a bunch of different categories; he/she was correct in that global warming is separate from the greenhouse effect is separate from climate change etc. etc.)
quote:
However, whether science has drawn that conclusion or not, aren't we better taking measures now than waiting until we *know* whether industrialisation is the cause or not. If not (i.e. natural cycles), then there's not a lot we can do and no harm done, if it is industrialisation causing excessive greenhouse gasses then we have taken at least preliminary steps.
You're talking about the "Precautionary Principle" in one of its forms, and it is a major argument of those supporting things like the Kyoto Treaty. The argument against it is that there absolutely can be harm done, some of it quite significant; the primary harm posed by the Kyoto Treaty is economic, and economic harm means more than General Motors losing big bucks--it potentially means (I stress 'potentially'; the 'science' on this is as uncertain as I'm claiming the science on global warming to be) severe recession or depression, massive job loss, economic collapse in some nations, reduced quality of life, etc. etc.
Prudence and caution are laudable but must be weighed against their own consequences. British MP (Member of Parliament) Lee Morrison wrote a piece saying that this same thinking also justifies the burning of witches. We don't have hard evidence that witches cause crop failure, and we don't have hard evidence that this particular person who stands accused actually is a witch, but lots of people believe it so let's send her up in flames to be on the safe side.
This topic grows and grows and could spawn a hundred threads itself.
quote:
Now, I don't know enough about the controversy to take one side or the other. However, if it is agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that industrialized nations are dumping into the atmosphere and it might contribute to the problem of warming. Where's the harm in practicing a little prevention? Better that than finding out we could have given ourselves another 10 years or more to work on a solution.
See my comment about MP Morrison and the witches above. The point is that it's more than just a 'little prevention.' It's a lot of prevention. The Kyoto Treaty comes down hard on the US but exempts China and India. If we continue this thread, I can throw some numbers in about how much CO2 is produced by whom and what areas consume it (the controversial CO2 'sinks'), and all the stuff that surrounds it including some studies casting doubt on CO2 as a cause of global warming as opposed to an effect.
quote:
The only factual remark I made about global warming at all, is that Antarctica is breaking up. I then went back and retracted that remark and said "it appears to be breaking up". If you don't agree with that, fine. But cite a credible source that says its not breaking up, and don't accuse the scientists who say it does appear to be breaking up of junk science.
Fair enough; give me a little time since this is not one of the issues on which I have information at my fingertips. Please recall, though, that I only said that some of it is junk science; not all.
I would ask you show that, even if Antarctica is 'breaking up' (I assume you mean the ice sheets and not the continent itself):
1. It's not happened before naturally
2. It isn't natural now
3. It is a result of global warming
4. The global warming is a result of man's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And please add why we should believe this when many of the same folks said back in the 70's that the same greenhouse gases would surely result in another ice age.
quote:
I want information as to why and how junk science was involved, not insults... Is this too much to ask for?
Not too much at all. The thing that comes most readily to mind in that regard is the modeling by the UN in creating the IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Something like 120 different computer models using 12 different factors or variables. Their own report says that there is 'low' or 'very low' understanding of 9 of the factors. For 2 of the factors there is 'medium' understanding. They only say there is a 'high' level of understanding for 1 factor: greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane et al). They use a bunch of computer models with the factors set at different levels to get the results. It is only on the two models using the worst assumptions about all 12 factors that result in the global warming spouted in the media (not to say there isn't ANY, just that only the worst case assumptions result in the disaster scenarios we keep hearing about).
Actually, in writing this, I realize that I'm not stating my position accurately: the research described in the IPCC is not junk science; it is honest and straightforward. It is "The Summary for Policymakers" attached to it that is junk. The summary was written not by the scientists who conducted the IPCC research but by UN policy wonks. It obscures the uncertainties outlined in the research and uses unsupported doomsday scenarios to further policy aims. This is, in fact, what happened with the much-touted NAS report from a couple of weeks ago which the media claims 'proved' global warming. It did no such thing. The scientists who conducted that research were never shown the final report and certainly never signed it. The summary was written by bureaucrats who glossed over the science to make a policy statement; further, the few concessions they made to the science itself were ignored by the media who erroneously used the report to claim that there is a concensus among scientists that global warming is real.
Enough for now; I'll write more next week (I have my kids this weekend, and I don't give up time with them for the computer).
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 06/29/2001 14:26:14 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 14:51:37 [Permalink]
|
Man, I don't visit this thread because I don't visit the BA board, and here you guys are secretly talking about other stuff! No fair! 
Anywho (hoo?), there's another thread here somewhere where I let my own views and doubts known about climate change, but this one thing here I need to caution you on, as I said the same thing over there before finding out the following:
quote:
4. The global warming is a result of man's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And please add why we should believe this when many of the same folks said back in the 70's that the same greenhouse gases would surely result in another ice age.
I thought this also, but in doing some research, this is in fact quite overblown. There was maybe one or two scientists who made a very brief mention of the possibility of the Ice Age Doomsday scenario. It has since been embellished and used by skeptics of human-induced climate change erroneously.
Everything else I totally agree with! Go Garrette! 
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 15:01:43 [Permalink]
|
Since I don't have an overwhelming urge to research this part of it myself, and since it's not crucial to the argument, I will withdraw my question about the Ice Age scares in the 70's on Tokyodreamer's say so.
One caveat: I personally remember the scenarios in the news. Or maybe the aliens told me about it before they agreed to make me king which isn't happening nearly fast enough, by gummy.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 15:41:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One caveat: I personally remember the scenarios in the news. Or maybe the aliens told me about it before they agreed to make me king which isn't happening nearly fast enough, by gummy.
From what I read about it, the media indeed made somewhat of a big deal about it, but the crux of the matter is that the scientific community is being portrayed as having had a consensus, when in fact they did not. (apparently; this is secondhand knowledge of course).
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 15:47:29 [Permalink]
|
Good grief, mistaken for Computer Org/Gauss/Patch and whoever else he may be this week... :) He was harsh in that response and I would never say things like that.
I have to say I agree with everything you've said.
I'm really not that familar with the global warming issues, which is one reason I'm frustrated that I somehow got into a flame war over at BABB. The only thing I am familar with is the Antarctic Ice Sheets.
India and China being exempt from the Kyoto Treaty is certaintly "junky" and I'm not sure I was aware of that. Developing countries, it seems to me, would produce a greater amount of CO2 then developed ones, and you are talking about a sizable portion of the world's population with those two countries. I can see why you have a problem with that.
quote:
I would ask you show that, even if Antarctica is 'breaking up' (I assume you mean the ice sheets and not the continent itself):
1. It's not happened before naturally
2. It isn't natural now
3. It is a result of global warming
4. The global warming is a result of man's addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And please add why we should believe this when many of the same
folks said back in the 70's that the same greenhouse gases would surely result in another ice age.
Yes, I meant the ice sheets, I noticed that later but I had already edited the damn thing twice :)
I can't, nor can anybody I expect, show any of those points. I would say it implies global warming, certainly it shows regional warming or else they wouldn't be melting. The european glaciers are all receeding too, as can be seen in turn of the century photographs. Since climatic changes are normally slow, and 100 years is 'fast' as far as climate is concerned, I'm sure you can see why I find this alarming. I'm not rushing around screaming like chicken little though, and I can't even say that it IS our fault that it is happening. All I can say is it is scary...
The articles I've read seem to suggest that if one crucial glacier or ice wall goes in the Antarctic, there may be a domino effect as millions of tons of snow and ice flow into the ocean. This is indeed a frightening scenario, but I don't believe the possiblity it may happen means it will happen.
I suppose I jump to the conclusion that when anybody calls something 'junk science' it is not worth studying anymore, and I disagree with that. The whole situation is very complex and needs much more study and measured cautioned steps.
I do tend to side on the precautionary side, I can't see how dumping any amount of CO2 or pollution into the atmosphere can be good, but I agree that we need to take it slowly. The cure can sometimes be worse then the disease, and one of the things my father taught be the best was "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
As for putting Wildcat in the same category as Otomo and Sequester, I admit that was unfair of me. I have an unabashed hatred of pseudoscience and junk science and I admit that is really the only issue I had against him. It may be an issue of semantics. I believe 'good' science can be wrong (after all newtonian physics is 'wrong' under certain conditions and certainly isn't bad science). I also believe all science is helpful, even if wrong. "Junk" science, in my opinion, is pseudoscience, which isn't really science at all. And I don't believe that global warming is in that category.
|
|
|
|
Torsten
New Member
Canada
16 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 23:41:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I thought this also, but in doing some research, this is in fact quite overblown. There was maybe one or two scientists who made a very brief mention of the possibility of the Ice Age Doomsday scenario. It has since been embellished and used by skeptics of human-induced climate change erroneously.
Some time ago I was trying to determine just how much was being said about the ice age scenario in the 1970's. From a CD collection of Time Magazine articles, I found these statements in an article dated February 2, 1970:
"Some environment experts visualize future dramas of disaster that seem to border on science fiction. A few scientists feel that the outpouring of carbon dioxide, mainly from industry, is forming an invisible global filter in the atmosphere. This filter may act like a greenhouse; transparent to sunlight but opaque to heat radiation bouncing off the Earth. In theory, the planet will warm up. The icecaps will melt, the oceans will rise by 60 ft, drowning the world's coastal cities.
"Other scientists argue the exact opposite; they point out that the Earth's average temperature has dropped by 0.2 degreed C since 1945, though the carbon content of the air keeps increasing every year. to explain this phenomenon, many ecologists think that various particles in the atmosphere are reflecting sunlight away from Earth, thus cooling the planet. Since about 31% of the world's surface is covered by low clouds, increasing this cover to 36% through pollution would drop the temperature about 4 degrees -- enough to start a return to the ice age."
So there you have it, balanced reporting 31 years ago.
TK
huh? |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 00:53:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
aint no used trying to argue here i tryed and faled. Phil (the bad astronmer) works or used to work for nasa. so hes on there payroll. this site is to try to make people think we landed on the moon when we didnt so nasa can still have a budget to waste our money. check out the guy that just wnet into space with the russians. why do you think nasa didnt want him going up? cause hed find out they lie about everything. go ahead and beleive what you want to but dont bother arguing here.
Jumping away from the global warming topic for a few minutes, I was scanning down through the BABB a few minutes ago and found this new delightful and exceptionally intelligent diatribe from the dreaded erwin.jennings posted under the "Get over yourself, Phil" topic that was originally posted a few days ago by some nasty anonymous cretin.(http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/5350.html)
I think we are indeed starting to see two factions of trolls. This post is clearly symptomatic of the rotting brain redneck variety of troll (do you know anyone else named "erwin" other than Erwin Rommel? I don't think this guy can even spell his name right!). What a genius! It's a blessed wonder that "erwin" can even find his way into the Internet. Doh!!!
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Edited by - rubysue on 07/01/2001 14:20:31 |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 00:55:18 [Permalink]
|
Just in case anyone's mildly interested, JW is back. Ever notice how these things come in waves? Any friendly wagers on when we'll see P***r or C********y D**e? (I was chastised once for actually spelling out their names. I guess like demons of myth, they know when someone mentions them)
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 01:49:57 [Permalink]
|
I've responded to the brilliant Mr. jennings's latest missive:
http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/5350.html
quote:
Hah! Do you really think that posting way down here will allow you to escape the all-seeing eye of the International Moon Hoax Conspiracy? As Director of Special Office J (Assassinations, Cover-ups, and Conspiracies) of the Department of Extraneous Services, I can assure you that we track every move made by every hoax believer on or offline. Your attempts to share the TRUTH with the American Sheeple are doomed to fail! No amount of your brilliant erudition and dazzling logic can overcome the brute power of our mind-control surveillance technology or the ruthlessness of our field agents. These, the so-called Men In Black, don't even wear black, which just shows how insidiously deceitful we really are. We have subverted every government, every military agency, every astronomer, and every amateur radio society in the world! What chance do you think you have?
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 03:04:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're talking about the "Precautionary Principle" in one of its forms, and it is a major argument of those supporting things like the Kyoto Treaty. The argument against it is that there absolutely can be harm done, some of it quite significant; the primary harm posed by the Kyoto Treaty is economic, and economic harm means more than General Motors losing big bucks--it potentially means (I stress 'potentially'; the 'science' on this is as uncertain as I'm claiming the science on global warming to be) severe recession or depression, massive job loss, economic collapse in some nations, reduced quality of life, etc. etc.
Prudence and caution are laudable but must be weighed against their own consequences. British MP (Member of Parliament) Lee Morrison wrote a piece saying that this same thinking also justifies the burning of witches. We don't have hard evidence that witches cause crop failure, and we don't have hard evidence that this particular person who stands accused actually is a witch, but lots of people believe it so let's send her up in flames to be on the safe side.
I was unaware of this principle. As for economics...many car manufacturers that produce minivans said that it would be too expensive to redesign these vehicles for safety. (This was following the insurance industry tests showing that many were unsafe.) Toyota redesigned their minivan that failed the tests miserably. They did this at a lower cost.
Now this may or may not be the case with redesigning systems to lower the emission of greenhouse gasses. But a pre-industrialized world didn't have the amounts of gasses being dumped into the atmosphere that we see today. I do realize that much of the particulate matter and greenhouse gasses are naturally occuring. Denver sits in a natural sink for these materials (IOW, there was a brown cloud here pre-industrial) in the trough between the high plains and the Rockies.
There has been a man-made contribution that has unnaturally increased the amount of CO2 and other gasses in our atmosphere. So control of these gasses *seems* to me an idea that is not necessarily detrimental to the atmosphere.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 06:04:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just in case anyone's mildly interested, JW is back.
Oh geesh, thanks for pointing that out :P
I think Torsten and I summoned him by talking about him...
What a stubborn old coot... I wish I hadn't read any of his posts, he's so combative and patronizing.
I'm going to stay out of this one, my blood pressure can't take it. :) Sorry guys, but you'll have to defend expanding four dimensional space and relativity on your own. :P
Remember, if you want to see him go off the deep end, use these keywords- "hypersphere", "twin paradox", "surface of a 4 demensional balloon"...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
