Debate on the existance of Global Warming
- 09-05-2005, 01:07 PM
Debate on the existance of Global Warming
I'm not totally convinced that we're not seeing global warming...From a stat point of view, one degree seems insignificant, yes. But, given that CO2 in the atmosphere DOES insulate the earth, and given the vast rise in CO2 in our atmosphere, I have a hard time denying it.
Whether or not it is responsible for what is going on, I have no clue.
- 09-05-2005, 01:23 PM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I remember watching Bill Maher the other night. Some dip**** broad wanted to know why we weren't air dropping food. Gee, air dropping food into a huge puddle of sewage with corpses floating around in it. Brilliant. Also wanted to know why we weren't landing planes there to pull people out en masse instead of using helicopters. Gee, landing a plane in an area that was just flooded. Brilliant. Perhaps landing a sea plane in the gulf or one of the lakes would work, but then rescue workers would have to wade through miles of debris and diseased water to get to the people they needed to rescue. Another brilliant plan.
Two very, very good artciles on the subject:
09-05-2005, 03:07 PM
CO2 can insulate the Earth. It has insulated another planet that we know of, one dead planet. However in the presence life increased CO2 tends to lead to greater proliferation of plant life and increased oxygen production. The studies that show this conveniently get left out of those big global conventions on the Future of Our Planet! or what not. For global warming, I think the IPCC has yet to incorporate data on atmostpheric coolants into it's forecast models. Gee, you think they always predict the Earth is getting hotter because they don't allow data into their models that would counter that conclusion?Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
The Earth may be getting warmer. And this warming effect might trigger a global ice age. And incidentally no matter what pattern the weather follows it's always due to global warming according to these kooks. Which might make you wonder what kind of theory can and does predict everything, and thus can't be falsified. Scientifically it's called bull****.
There are times in our planet's past where it's been on average 10 or more degrees hotter so far as we can tell. Life was flourishing. It's been a hell of a lot colder, life was flourishing. Climate shifts have happened thousands upon thousands of times over the course of our planet's history, life was flourishing all throughout these periods, and for some reason this time (if it is getting warming... or perhaps getting warmer but then cooler because of the warmness... gee, we're just not sure...) it's our fault and the fault of our SUV driving aunt? I don't think so.
The reason most people have trouble turning skeptical eye to this nonsense is because it's one of the new accepted religions for which you only hear one side. Take all the PHDs claiming we're going to turn the Earth into a true melting pot and put them in front of other PHDs who don't believe it and let them be questioned and they start doing Ralph Cramdens:
Question: "Gee professor, why do you exclude this data from your computer models, and how exactly do you know so precisely what the temperature was over the Pacific that long ago?"
Answer: "Uh, hummanna hummanna hummanna hummanna..."
Global Warming is the latest rage of the Malthusians who have been present in every day and age claiming the sky is falling. Consider some points:
Why is the answer these people propose always more government control? The government is the biggest direct polluter of the environment, with sovereign immunity of course. Is it because they mistakenly see the government as having a great track record of protecting us when governments in general have been responsible for more death and enforced neglect than any other agency in history? Or, is it because this is the new justification the socialist movement has grabbed onto in the world today? This is the excuse for needing socialism now. Is it because they have an aesthetic objection to a primarily capitalist society and the values it promulgates, and they know the only way to fight that is to have control of the agency that has control of legal force, the government? Then they can force people to live in a way they find pleasing.
Why do these people react with disgust at any industrial emission, regardless of how the environment reacts? There are chemical byproducts green groups have been trying to outlaw for years that are literally the same chemicals natural bacteria and other processes produce en masse on our planet. They have zero observable environmental impact, they are in fact an integral part of the system. However, when chemical byproduct X is produced by a bacteria, it's good. When it's produced by a human process, it's bad. Interesting point of view.
Why is it no one looks or listens with skepticism at the environmental movement when it's most vocal proponents are people who have been making provably incorrect predictions for decades? It's understandable that the cloak of science makes some people think "Well, they must know better." However, even lunatic claims over the years haven't been questioned, and by lunatic I means claims like the one I mentioned, that the Earth's temperature has risen one degree over the last 100 years as a matter of certainty. Such a claim is on its face borderline insane, no one really questions it. This indicates an underlying social dynamic that needs to be looked at before you take such people at their word.
How is it that the Earth has gone through such an amalgomation of **** over the millenia without life being extinguished, yet no one questions the idea that a few SUVs will cause our downfall? Deserts were once oceans or jungles, seas were covered with glaciers, mountain ranges rise and fall, volcanos errupt en masse and then fell silent, comets and asteroids have hit the Earth, life is still here. It has to make you wonder at the real threat a ****ing Hummer poses.
Related to that, no one questions the basic philosophy of environmental protectionism, or as it's properly known conservationism. There's an inherent conflict in the ideology because you can't conserve or protect something that by nature is in a constant state of change. Nature is a dynamic system, not a static one. There are no 'delicate balances' in nature as it's so often put. The balances in nature are the result of brutal competition among forces. People don't want to protect the Earth or the environment in the larger sense. They want to protect and keep static what they feel is the most pleasant state of the environment for them. And no one ever questions that, or brings up the point that attempts to keep a dynamic system static are just as destructive as intrusions into that system that weren't previously there. More destructive. There's ample evidence the Earth can accomodate pretty much any intrusion of life or other forces into its system with a minimum of fuss. It's been doing so for millenia. See what happens any time someone trys to stop a dynamic system and keep it static with no change. The end result is usually relatively catastrophic for that system, because it was meant to change, it was supposed to change to accomodate a new set of influences. In other words, the attempts of the greenies to turn this world into one big atrium are probably more likely to be harmful than any amount of industry.
09-05-2005, 03:24 PM
Dissuading you of your position would require writing a book on the subject of global warming. And in order to keep your interest, it would probably have to be done in a narrative form. Thankfully, Michael Crichton has already done that work for me in State of Fear. So, if you're really interested in finding truth on that subject, read that book. It won't hurt a bit. Promise.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
09-05-2005, 03:39 PM
From the statement above that basically tells me that you have not one clue about the basic philosophy of environmental protection. The whole idea is surrounding this is to attempt to protect the system that is in flux and is always going to be that way. As far as we know we are the first organisms on this planet to be able to affect large numbers of ecosystems on a very large scale. That alone is enough for us to use caution when dealing with systems and structures that we have just a small idea on how they work.
Contrary to what the present adminstration is pushing, there is NO major debait in the scientific community on global warming. The extent of what is happening or what might could happen is debated due the nature of science, which is there are NO absolutes when you are dealing with scientific studies.
Yes the planet has been hotter in the past ages and it also had more oxygen in the atomosphere than it does now, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has also flucuated but if you go back and look at the fossil record, you will also mass extinctions that were right around those times. Now my question is, do we REALLY want to experiment with upsetting a system that we depend on for life? And just to refresh your memory, most mass extinctions get the top of the food webs.. and leave room for the small creatures to fill niches.
Finally, your last statement is PURE BULL****.. most environmental activists do realise that we have to live but the way that we are living now is killing us all... slowly but it is picking up speed... so I guess you solution would be to keep standing on the track because if I don't believe the train is going to hit me then it won't. Sorry CDB but plan on doing that.. and to answer you question about more government regulation, it can be done without it.. we have got to quit being such dumbasses and realize that we have a problem and take steps to correct it, NO MORE denying that it doesn't exist to keep a hydrocarbon based fuel economy running.
09-05-2005, 03:43 PM
CDB: I understand all of that and yes, CO2 is going to be associated with proliferation of plant life because that's the molecule that supplies plants with the carbon they need to grow. Then oxygen is the biproduct, yes.
But, the problem is we're tearing down rain forests (which make up 70% of our oxygen production) while increasing CO2 production....we'll see over time.
09-05-2005, 03:44 PM
Interesting, and this from the guy that wrote the Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and Jurassic Park.. okay...Originally Posted by Nabeshin
09-05-2005, 03:46 PM
And don't forget that algae that were destroying in the ocean that help in the production of oxygen also..
09-05-2005, 04:00 PM
09-05-2005, 04:28 PM
I evaluate this to be a political philosophy. If you wish to dissuade me from my libertarian sentiments, you will need science. Lots of science. And that's the rub. (*)Originally Posted by Matthew D
*Even if this were true, it's irrelevant. Consider the history of Eugenics and Pellagra.Contrary to what the present adminstration is pushing, there is NO major debait in the scientific community on global warming.
There is nothing inherently scientific about the "scientific community." Science is a process, not a body. We of all people should know that just 'cuz that doctor says so don't make it so.
We have no choice. CO2 emissions is but one of myriad ways we affect our surroundings, an unknown number of which we aren't even aware of. The "science" of "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" is poor, in my eyes, and until that changes, my position is immutable.Now my question is, do we REALLY want to experiment with upsetting a system that we depend on for life?
If my epistemology earns me the epithet of "dumbass," I don't care to be smart.we have got to quit being such dumbasses and realize that we have a problem and take steps to correct it, NO MORE denying that it doesn't exist to keep a hydrocarbon based fuel economy running.
09-05-2005, 04:29 PM
I have to completely agree with everything that you said there, as you basically just summed up where I stand on this issue in total. Some people will just never be able to accept the fact that we are in real trouble in terms of what we are doing to this planet on a daily basis and we are making matters worse everyday. I believe that the Earth reacts to us, as would our bodies to a virus that it is trying to ward off, as it is ALIVE, we just so happen to live on it, like many micro-organisms live on and within our bodies.Originally Posted by Matthew D
I do not know if it is ego or the fact that some individuals just cannot or just do not want to accept the fact that due to the actions of the human species, some sort of catastrophic, extinction level type event could take place within the timespan of their lifetime. I firmily believe that we are much closer to it then we may realize. We are not the centralized "IT" that we like like to sometimes think we are. We are in reality, just a small, small portion of an unbelievably incomprehendable sum totality.
Some scientists have even speculated that the Earth very well may be ending it's current cycle of habitabillity and it would not suprise me a bit if some mass extinction level type event took place within the next 100 years....wich we will be dead anyway, so oh well. Maybe not COMPLETE exinction, but certainly a huge mass total will be wiped out completely....leaving only a small portion to start over again. Just an opinion though, I am not saying it WILL happen.
As a matter of FACT, it is only a matter of WHEN before an asteroid crosses paths with our orbit and whenever it does, scientists say that it will probably be too late by the time we even realize that it is going to hit the Earth and many scientists are are also saying that based on the Earth's history of impacts, we are nearly and very probably due for a huge impact at ANYTIME now. Pretty scary to think about, actually. Oh well, so much for being at the top of the food chain. Nothing you can do about it other than just to keep on keepin' on and living like there is no tommorow....because there just might not be!
09-05-2005, 04:41 PM
I'm no fan of the Bush administration, however there is such a debate going on. It's not reported on is all. Every major conference on the subject has had dissenters galour. Books abound on the subject of global warming from the skeptical side, not the believer side. Books written by people with just as many letters after their names as global warming's proponents, and who incidentally don't work for oil companies. It's also a point of nicety to say there's no debate on global warming, generally true now, and saying there's no debate on the impact of humans on global warming. There is significant debate on that.Originally Posted by Matthew D
The extent of what is happening or what might could happen is debated due the nature of science, which is there are NO absolutes when you are dealing with scientific studies. Yes the planet has been hotter in the past ages and it also had more oxygen in the atomosphere than it does now, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has also flucuated but if you go back and look at the fossil record, you will also mass extinctions that were right around those times.To refresh your memory, they were also lower mamals with no higher thought processes. So let me get this straight: there is debate about the impact of humans; there is debate about the relative harmfulness of this or that action; there is absolutely little to no certainty as to what if anything could or should be done; and, I just have to point out once more that most people pushing the believer side of the theory also have definite socio-economic opinions which are, shall we say, quaint.Now my question is, do we REALLY want to experiment with upsetting a system that we depend on for life? And just to refresh your memory, most mass extinctions get the top of the food webs.. and leave room for the small creatures to fill niches.
In light of the above need I point that any attempt to do anything about this possible situation is as much of an experiment as just leaving things alone?
Not in my experience, however your response proves my point Matt. "The way that we are living now is killing us all..." In a post that acknowledges uncertainty while at the same time denying the existence of a debate that's clearly there, the quoted statement says a lot. There is little to no evidence that the way were are living right now is killing us. There is little to no evidence that even if it is that we'd know how to stop it without quite literally destroying our economies,. There is ample evidence that if given the power to 'do something' the government likely will do something... that makes things worse. Grant what you say as true, the problem seems to be that most environmental activists have little to no economic education and don't realize how immediately destructive almost all of their 'solutions' are.Finally, your last statement is PURE BULL****.. most environmental activists do realise that we have to live but the way that we are living now is killing us all...
Bad analogy, Matt. The certainty of the environmental impact of an increase in global temperature over time, whether man made or otherwise, is no where near the certainty of the bad consequences of getting hit by a train. Not by a long shot. In fact it's quite the opposite, since the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen drastically thousands if not millions of times with little to no discernable impact in the long run.slowly but it is picking up speed... so I guess you solution would be to keep standing on the track because if I don't believe the train is going to hit me then it won't. Sorry CDB but plan on doing that
Then, since I've read Earth in the Balance and other such tomes perhaps, if you haven't already, you might want to look into alternative points of view that acknowledge global warming is a problem, but differ on what to do about it? Perhaps you might interested that it's the government that's the biggest polluter. Seems odd then to trust them with the safety of the environment. Perhaps you'd like to know that it's the government courts that decided a while ago that as long as everyone is polluting the same amount, they're not polluting. Perhaps you'd want to pay attention to the fact that it's the government that has eroded our property rights which, if respected, would give us as a people a lot more control over the water we drink, the land we live on and even the air we breathe. It's the government that has turned industrial pollution into an economic externality that doesn't cost corporations anything. It's the government controlled forrests that are always springing into wildfires or being logged into nonexistence... and to answer you question about more government regulation, it can be done without it.. we have got to quit being such dumbasses and realize that we have a problem and take steps to correct it, NO MORE denying that it doesn't exist to keep a hydrocarbon based fuel economy running.
Perhaps this, a fairly nice article on air pollution by Rothbard would be a good start: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
I've read and listened to all sides, I've yet to see one convincing piece of evidence that "[t]he way that we are living now is killing us all..." I do see a lot dissolute socialists who seem to hate everything about an advancing capitalist society grasping for a cause. I do see a managed debate where the skeptical side is almost never allowed to question the believer side, and when they do all of a sudden the believers end up looking like a bunch of kooky priests rather than scientists. I see thousands of generations of Malthusians claiming the end of the world is, or was, nigh. Oddly enough, it's still here and despite some politicians doing their best to screw things up, we're doing quite okay. I think my judgement will remain extremely skeptical for now.
09-05-2005, 04:46 PM
Nabeshin, did I not say that in my post that science is an ongoing thing... but you are wanting to experiment with the exact object that you live on... does that NOT seem a bit strange to you? And as for trying to change your mind, personally I don't care if you change you politics or not.. I am trying to point out the facts as we see them now and trying to urge some caution when we are doing this. And by being deeply set in your ways then that does bestow you the title of dumbass. .. AND let me express this again, FROM what we KNOW NOW, there does appear to be an overall warming of the Earth's climate, which seems to be coming from an increase of carbon dioxide emmission.. is this a normal cycle or something that we are causing, that I don't know yet or from what I have been reading in my journals, I haven't seen it.
09-05-2005, 04:52 PM
Yup, and those rainforrests are almost always government owned and leased out for clear cutting. Makes your faith in their protection of the environment jump a notch or two, don't it?Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
You know what was one of the biggest environmental changes ever? Grass. It puts out a ****load of oxygen, serves as an energy source for many, many animals. Didn't exist for the longest time, not as we currently know it. Likely if environmentalists lived at the time grass started to take hold they would have seen it as an evil. Where are all our lovely forrests and shrubberies going to go once all this grass over grows them?!
It's simply explained. No matter what the observable data is, no one can really tell you what it means in the long term. No one, not yet. As such, it's wrong to take action because there's just as much of a chance that you'd be doing something harmful as good, harmful to the enviroment and/or to our economy. Grant that we are a cancer on the Earth, a doctor approaches an already sick patient with the axiom First do no harm. Whether a person is sick or not, if you want an improvement in a certain situation the first rule should be to make sure what you're doing isn't going to make things worse. If you want to stretch the analogy further our current understanding of our planet's climate could accurately be said to be at the same stage as when doctors were bleeding patients to cure them of disease. Would you trust those cranks? Why trust our current cranks?
Anytime anyone tells you they know something for certain, especially after they go through some trouble telling you nothing is known for certain, and that they know the cure and it requires giving them a significant amount of control over you, you should be very, very skeptical.
09-05-2005, 04:56 PM
I didn't say I trust the government with environmental change.. sorry I am about the business of education.. that is where the change comes from.. and I have read Earth in the Balance, plus a ton of other environmental impact books/textbooks... The thing that is very disturbing to me that we still have people that don't even think that there is any problem with the way that the world is now.. and with that I am out of this debate because I have seen the writing on the wall.. trying to even remotely see any point that I have would be better served by bashing my head against the wall because it would serve the same purpose.. and I really hope that I am wrong in my beliefs but I doubt you would even go that far as to say that..
09-05-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by Matthew DWell, which is it? For a person who admits uncertainty you seem so certain. This, I would say, is a manifestation of the mentallity surrounding this issue in the believer camp. "We have no idea what's going on, but we know exactly what to do about it..." The need to maintain the veneer of science and the uncertainty in that discipline over what is essentially a religion requires such contradictions. And I view all religions with skepticism.Originally Posted by Matthew D
09-05-2005, 05:00 PM
I have to say I would like to meet some of these so called environmentalist that you keep talking about.. the ones I am talkign about are people like E.O. Wilson but he is alittle bit more radical than some of the others that I am thinking ofOriginally Posted by CDB
09-05-2005, 05:03 PM
CDB, you can tell when thing are going wrong with things before you can tell what the problem is can't you? \And sometimes that little "knock" that might be nothing turns out to be something.. and from that, I am saying that we really need to take a LONG HARD look at how we are living in our world. Would it kill us to explore a less polluting method of producing energy that we need for the style of living we have become acustom to in the last few years?
09-05-2005, 05:04 PM
One, you're wrong. For a while I didn't deny global warming was occurring because satelite data did not indicate it. I believe around 2000 a study or two was done on those satelites and it turned ou degrading orbits caused readings to be cooler than they actually were. In other words the Earth was getting warmer according to all temperature measurements now. That's all it took to change my mind on that issue. My opinions are flexible, I try my best to see they are based on facts. I see no flexibility in the environmental movement, no disagreement as to what the problem is and what the solution is. I see no attention paid to those who have the bad manners to point out that the economic consequences of massive government control in the name of protecting the environment, or anything else for that matter, are clearley known.Originally Posted by Matthew D
I hate to point it out, Matt, but in one of your last posts, the first of your responses I believe, you quite clearly said the needed changes were only achievable through government intervention. Perhaps the 'scientists' pushing global warming so much and pushing government solutions so hard should take a step back listen to the practitioners of that other discipline, economics. It might help the debate a bit. Unless of course it's really not about global warming.
09-05-2005, 05:07 PM
The key is what you believe because I had NOT even mentioned the use of intervention of the government... and for the love of pete please don't put words in my typing.. and I am splitting this off of this thread because it is become one of politics not news...
Take it easy CDB
09-05-2005, 05:11 PM
Absolutely not, I'd welcome it. I hate the smell of exhaust and I love the idea of clean air. However you will most likely find we have very, very different approaches as to how that research is best achieved. And, to be honest, I think history favors my view of less government intervention as opposed to more. We don't need them giving incentives to develop boondoggle technologies, or pushing one at the expense of another without regard as to which the market would choose. The best and simplest first step in my opinion is to start respecting property rights in land, water and air. Basically polluters would have to pay for their pollution then. This would have the general effect of pushing pollution down to the lowest tolerable levels while also providing an accurate market price structure so researchers could properly gauge the economic feasability of energy alternatives.Originally Posted by Matthew D
09-05-2005, 05:13 PM
The fact of the matter is, as long as we are all divided and busy warring in our little "camps," problems such as this will NEVER be solved....there will only be the endless clashing of opinions and arguing over who is right and who is wrong in a perpetual cycle of fighting for superiority....and the reality of it is, it is this very hard headedness that is ultimately going to contribute to our ultimate demise. While we are busy arguing over validity of this and or the non-validity of that....these "problems" that are ultimately being debated are progressively getting worse and sadly, I believe that despite all of our so called "science" and achievments, the problem will be too far gone, hence, it will be TOO LATE once we finally have figured out a way to find the irrefutable proof that we have in fact ****ed the entire ecosystem up. Science cannot stop natural order and cycles of life and death, hence, we cannot play God, no matter how "smart" we like to THINK that we are....end of story.
09-05-2005, 05:16 PM
On that fact we have no debate
CDB, Personally from the guys and ladies that I know that are working in the environmental field they are very very well aware of the impact of any thing that they do in regard to enviromental issues.. but they are NOT the ones that you see on television because it is not flashy enough for the the news.. so I really don't think that we disagree on as much as you think we do.. economics are a what they are.. just like science is what it is.. and both have to come together to change the smell of the exhaust pipe...
you have made some very basiclly incorrect assumptions about how I few things... and I will take credit for not expression what I have to say better... so with that I will let you go and sorry I have wasted your time by trying to talk to you...
09-05-2005, 05:18 PM
Great post.. and one way that I feel.. we can't "technology" ourselves out of some problems..Originally Posted by Big_E
09-05-2005, 05:33 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Rock Lee in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 09-11-2012, 02:16 AM
- By LakeMountD in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 12-13-2008, 02:27 PM
- By AllNatural in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 17Last Post: 05-14-2005, 10:06 PM
- By 3v1l in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 04-28-2005, 09:11 AM
- By silverSurfer in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 09-28-2004, 11:03 AM