So... now the debate's over? (Global warming) [NA]

[Greebo]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm

When did the debate end?

I'm so out of touch...

 

[corjulo]

There actually has been little debate over the fact that the world is warming, except maybe for Rush and he's ...well..., anyway the debate has been over the cause and solution, whether it's a normal process or manmade.

 

[poadeleted3]

Ahhh... USA Today. That's certainly who I go to for fact filled articles... NOT. Global warming is a pet of leftists looking for just one more way to grab a bit of power and control our lives. Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth.

 

[corjulo]

Joe, ...Never mind, Its hopeless

 

[judypilot]

Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth.

I agree with this. However, while the press is presenting this as a direct cause-and-effect relationship (that is, solidifying of the science and corporate/governmental reaction), it's not.

The companies are jumping on board for two reasons: (1) They want to be out ahead of any regulation, and (2) it's good business. BP was the industry leader, and it's been good for their bottom line. Have they stopped selling gas? Heck no! They're probably selling more because they've built an environment-friendly corporate image.

Reduction of carbon emissions is a good in its own right, quite independent of whether you believe in global warming or whether we can control it. First, it means less pollution. Second, it buys time for development of alternate energy sources, which we will need eventually. You can argue all you want about the timing, but we are using up fossil fuels at a faster rate than they are being made by geologic processes, so the sooner we get a jump on alternative sources, the less economic disruption there will be when crunch time hits.

All the disaster talk is silly. Even if we are the cause of the current warming trend (and that's the controversy, not whether there is a trend), we probably can't reverse it (pretty much everyone agrees on this), so we should be pouring money into adapting (which, in fact, we are).

I'm a geologist (and, by the way, I study long-term climate change, so this is in my field), and as such, I've got a pretty relaxed attitude about climate change. First, we're in a climatically unusual time in that we have ice caps. For most of Earth history, there weren't any ice caps, so it was just a matter of when they would melt, not if. Second, the world has been much, much warmer in the past, with no big problems for life. All the panic is basically that humans don't like change. Yeah, a few island and coastal areas will be submerged by rising sea level (including DC--and this is a bad thing?). But, so what. We'll just move. It was gonna happen anyway, and it's all going to happen slowly enough that we'll adapt just fine. It's already happening. Look how few people are able to get hurricane insurance any more. The market will force the required relocations.

The very idea that we can somehow hold climate constant is ludicrous. Climate changes constantly, on large and small time scales, without any help from us, and it's gonna keep changing.

Judy

 

[poadeleted3]

Joe, ...Never mind, Its hopeless

If you would like to debate the issue, and/or my stand on it, please feel free. But do so without personal slurs, which was all your post is.

 

[corjulo]

I agree with this. However, while the press is presenting this as a direct cause-and-effect relationship (that is, solidifying of the science and corporate/governmental reaction), it's not.

The companies are jumping on board for two reasons: (1) They want to be out ahead of any regulation, and (2) it's good business. BP was the industry leader, and it's been good for their bottom line. Have they stopped selling gas? Heck no! They're probably selling more because they've built an environment-friendly corporate image.

Reduction of carbon emissions is a good in its own right, quite independent of whether you believe in global warming or whether we can control it. First, it means less pollution. Second, it buys time for development of alternate energy sources, which we will need eventually. You can argue all you want about the timing, but we are using up fossil fuels at a faster rate than they are being made by geologic processes, so the sooner we get a jump on alternative sources, the less economic disruption there will be when crunch time hits.

All the disaster talk is silly. Even if we are the cause of the current warming trend (and that's the controversy, not whether there is a trend), we probably can't reverse it (pretty much everyone agrees on this), so we should be pouring money into adapting (which, in fact, we are).

I'm a geologist (and, by the way, I study long-term climate change, so this is in my field), and as such, I've got a pretty relaxed attitude about climate change. First, we're in a climatically unusual time in that we have ice caps. For most of Earth history, there weren't any ice caps, so it was just a matter of when they would melt, not if. Second, the world has been much, much warmer in the past, with no big problems for life. All the panic is basically that humans don't like change. Yeah, a few island and coastal areas will be submerged by rising sea level (including DC--and this is a bad thing?). But, so what. We'll just move. It was gonna happen anyway, and it's all going to happen slowly enough that we'll adapt just fine. It's already happening. Look how few people are able to get hurricane insurance any more. The market will force the required relocations.

The very idea that we can somehow hold climate constant is ludicrous. Climate changes constantly, on large and small time scales, without any help from us, and it's gonna keep changing.

Judy

Excellent Post!! though I think the rate of change is what's considered an issue.

My brother is also a geologist. Get this, his name is Clay. He gets ribbed about that all the time.

 

[corjulo]

If you would like to debate the issue, and/or my stand on it, please feel free. But do so without personal slurs, which was all your post is.

Lighten up Dude. Remember , I work for newspapers but I don't take your non stop attacks on their honesty personal. You say there is no such thing as global warming. Even the white House has acknowledge the world is getting warmer. You still choose to dismiss the thermometer as some kind of liberal media conspiracy. Why?

 

[inav8r]

You say there is no such thing as global warming.

Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth.

Actually Joe did not say he did not believe in Global Warming. I believe you misread his statement.

 

[corjulo]

Actually Joe did not say he did not believe in Global Warming. I believe you misread his statement.

'
The article is very clear that the cause is manmade greenhouse gasses. I assume Joe dismisses that conclusion, Am I wrong?

 

[Anthony]

Even the white House has acknowledge the world is getting warmer. You still choose to dismiss the thermometer as some kind of liberal media conspiracy. Why?

The climate has natural warming and cooling cycles. Natural events like volcano erruptions have much more effect on the ozone layer than anything man can do. I am all for reasonable environmental controls, but the Kyoto treaty is more of a socialist manifesto than anything resembling reasonable environmental policy.

 

[inav8r]

The article is very clear that the cause is manmade greenhouse gasses. I assume Joe dismisses that conclusion, Am I wrong?

Yes, you are still wrong. As a person who "work for newspapers" I would think you would have heard what happens when you ASS-U-ME. I read Joe's point to simply be "Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth." Nothing more or less.

For millions of years the globe has gone through periods of warming and cooling - over and over every 10 or so thousand years. Thinking we can control or stop this cycle is what I believe he's referring to.

 

[Greebo]

Hey, if you watch "The Day After Tomorrow" - we can just ignore global warming, cause it will cool down again real soon.

 

[poadeleted3]

Hey, if you watch "The Day After Tomorrow" - we can just ignore global warming, cause it will cool down again real soon.

What a crapaliscious movie LOL. I loved it, as I do nearly all campy disaster movies. My in-laws actually bought us the DVD for Christmas so we could quit renting it on In Demand.

 

[BruceAir]

Those interested in an informed, detailed discussion of this subject may want to visit http://www.realclimate.org/. It's a Web site maintained by scientists who discuss current news reports, books, television reports and attempt to clarify the information presented in those media. Or as they put it themselves:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

 

[corjulo]

Yes, you are still wrong. As a person who "work for newspapers" I would think you would have heard what happens when you ASS-U-ME. I read Joe's point to simply be "Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth." Nothing more or less.

For millions of years the globe has gone through periods of warming and cooling - over and over every 10 or so thousand years. Thinking we can control or stop this cycle is what I believe he's referring to.

I think your cycle period, 10,000 or so years is way off the mark. When was the last ice age?

It just seems to me that anytime a group of scientist says global warming is real, the rate is much faster then it should be and it is a result of manmade greenhouse gasses, you guy are quick to question their motive. I believe Joe called them "leftists looking for just one more way to grab a bit of power and control our lives"

Yet, When Rush Limbaugh or an oil company lobbyist rewriting white house science reports says it all a myth you're more then willing to believe them.

The problem is these climate models are extremely hard for the laymen to understands. Thus the data is easy for people with an agenda to manipulate. Often the only way for a laymen like myself to judge the validity of the data is to look at the motives of the person interpreting it.

I'm sorry but a low paid geek scientist who's life ambitions is a better slide ruler is a bit more believable then Rush Limbaugh or Joe.

 

[Greebo]

Dan:

The topic of discussion here is Global Warming, not Joe.

He's entitled to his opinion on the matter just as you are.

Knock off the personal remarks, please. (Hopeless remarks, Limbaugh comparisons, etc.)

 

[Anthony]

IOften the only way for a laymen like myself to judge the validity of the data is to look at the motives of the person interpreting it.

I'm sorry but a low paid geek scientist who's life ambitions is a better slide ruler is a bit more believable then Rush Limbaugh or Joe.

So what you're saying is anyone with a conservative viewpoint that interprets the data is wrong or lieing?

 

[inav8r]

I think your cycle period, 10,000 or so years is way off the mark.

I was only off by a factor of 10!

 

[corjulo]

Dan:

The topic of discussion here is Global Warming, not Joe.

He's entitled to his opinion on the matter just as you are.

Knock off the personal remarks, please. (Hopeless remarks, Limbaugh comparisons, etc.)

Understood, but Mr Limbuagh is one of the nations leading voices against global warming theories. With 400 radio station broadcasting his message every day, I think that puts him clearly at the center of the GW argument.

 

[Brian Austin]

Understood, but Mr Limbuagh is one of the nations leading voices against global warming theories. With 400 radio station broadcasting is message every day, I think that puts him clearly at the center of the GW argument.

Quote science instead of rhetoric, regardless of source and regardless of position.

Otherwise it IS political.

 

[Greebo]

Understood, but Mr Limbuagh is one of the nations leading voices against global warming theories. With 400 radio station broadcasting is message every day, I think that puts him clearly at the center of the GW argument.

Relevence?

The point was to stop making comparisons of Joe TO Rush, as the intention of it being an insult was clear.

 

[corjulo]

So what you're saying is anyone with a conservative viewpoint that interprets the data is wrong or lieing?

Not at all. I know many Conservatives who are very concerned about environmental issues. My brother is one of them.

You hit the nail on the hammer when you said "interpret the data". If we can't hope to be studied enough to be able to understand the data ourselves then we must take into account the motives of those who interpret it for us.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

The climate has natural warming and cooling cycles. Natural events like volcano erruptions have much more effect on the ozone layer than anything man can do. I am all for reasonable environmental controls, but the Kyoto treaty is more of a socialist manifesto than anything resembling reasonable environmental policy.

Thank you, Anthony! One volcano can spew more junk in the air than we can from our cars, power plants, and other sources.

Kyoto? The worst offenders like China don't have to do anything at all. It's just a way of screwing the countries who have done something to clean up their air.

We were right not to agree to that!

 

[poadeleted3]

Not at all. I know many Conservatives who are very concerned about environmental issues. My brother is one of them.

You hit the nail on the hammer when you said "interpret the data". If we can't hope to be studied enough to be able to understand the data ourselves then we must take into account the motives of those who interpret it for us.

I'm also quite concerned about the environment, since many of my hobbies have me spending a great deal of time in it. However, many of the global warming theories that we read in the papers, including the USA Today article posted, and the Kyoto Accords specifically, are at least as concerned with social engineering as they are environmental protections, and in many cases may actually be detrimental. Man is NOT the prime driver in global warming and cooling. If we disappeared today, the rate MAY change slightly, but global warming and cooling will continue as they have since the formation of the planet. Heck, check the effect cow emmissions have on the ozone layer.

 

[Anthony]

You hit the nail on the hammer when you said "interpret the data". If we can't hope to be studied enough to be able to understand the data ourselves then we must take into account the motives of those who interpret it for us.

So we can trust neither the conservative nor liberal interpreters because they all have an agenda? Everybody has an agenda. You choose not to believe the ones with a conservative agenda. Many if not most "scientists" are liberal as are most media outlets. They promote the conclusions of the liberal scientists for their own agenda.

I think its unwise to effectively destroy our economy over the recommendations of non U.S. environmental policy outlined in the Kyoto treaty.

 

[Henning]

Ahhh... USA Today. That's certainly who I go to for fact filled articles... NOT. Global warming is a pet of leftists looking for just one more way to grab a bit of power and control our lives. Thinking we can control global warming, or cooling, is a myth.

Is there journalistic bias? Of course there is, but this isn't about journalism. Is there Global Warming underway? Of course there is, the debate isn't if, it is why. I don't even see that the argument would be Goelogical Event or Man Made, but rather to what proportion each. Does carbon emmission into the atmosphere play a part in global warming? Yes it does, but then so does water vapor in the atmosphere. The real question to ask is "What effect will what proportion reduction on carbon emmissions have on this situation?" My personal belief is that the Carbon emmissions are accellerating the situation, and may have an impact on the final severity of the cycle. If we want to control the severity to any extent (and what extent thats even possible is also a question), the only factor in the equation we have any control over is the carbon emmission, so that's what we go after. Personnaly I look forward to heavy carbon restrictions because it will force the construction of more and better nuclear plants and other new technologies. Anyway, the earth needs a major catastrophic event anyway to kill off about 5 billion people and get the planet back to a more sustainable population.

 

[grattonja]

I don't know about politics and global warming. Or the economy either. I sure know what I see in the cockpit though. Here in Lancaster Co, when the farmers start burning off the field junk in the spring, I can watch the smoke clouds rise, and form into a nice haze layer that can really limit visibility. And it sure stinks of smoke under that layer. My failed-chemistry-in-college brain tells me that cannot be good for the environment. Will it warm the environment up? Don't know. Is it bad for the environment and all who live in it, including your's truly? You bet.

That's good enough for me to want to see some limits on pollution. I can live without some of the plastic toys out there for my kid, if the air smells better. China will just have to find something else cheap to do with it's slave/prisoner laborers.

Jim G

 

[corjulo]

Thank you, Anthony! One volcano can spew more junk in the air than we can from our cars, power plants, and other sources.

Except its not same same "junk". The chemistry in different, sulphur dioxide vs Carbon dioxide (very small amounts along with water vapor), Different altitudes, upper atmospheres vs lower, different effect global cooling from block sunlight vs trapped heat.

Thats not to say there is not real natural effects. volcanic emissions of gases such as sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen fluoride are important compared to human-induced sources. These gases have effects on climate (cooling), ozone and possibly global cloudiness.


Again, all of this maybe mute, as Judy said there are far more pressing reasons to reduce emmisions that have nothing to do with global warming

 

[corjulo]

So we can trust neither the conservative nor liberal interpreters because they all have an agenda? Everybody has an agenda. You choose not to believe the ones with a conservative agenda. Many if not most "scientists" are liberal as are most media outlets. They promote the conclusions of the liberal scientists for their own agenda.

I think its unwise to effectively destroy our economy over the recommendations of non U.S. environmental policy outlined in the Kyoto treaty.

I don't expect you to believe me when I say the "media" is no longer liberal, hasn't been for many years, but I will say it anyway. The media is corporate. Meaning it goes where it thinks the money is. It's far worse them being liberal or conservative.

I only know a few scientist so I can't really speak as to what makes then tick, politically that is.

And, you notice I have said NOTHING about Kyoto. Personally I never saw it as a workable program. That's a conclusion I came to based on the research done by conservative journalist I trust. And I support nuclear power and windmill off Nantucket. What does that make me?

 

[Brian Austin]

I find most of the arguments for global warming rather tedious. Why? Nothing will change without the world population getting up in arms about the way their planet is headed.

Try to explain global warming to a Chinese auto plant worker who is earning 10x what his farmer parents made, with less work. Then ask him to quit buying his new cars, DVD players, and anything else that contributes to emissions. Won't happen. Do the same thing here in the US. Won't happen. Why?

As a society, we like to think we're "global" players. Ask each of us individually and you'll find that we're local, maybe regional players at best. The media (regardless of position) plays us off the global playing field when in reality, most of us could care less.

Pollution in rapidly developing countries like China, India and even parts of Mexico is going to go through the same episodes we went through in the early-mid 70's. They won't look at us and learn from our own as well as Europe's mistakes with dumping raw chemicals in the ground and rivers. They'll drive their economies up to compete on the now global market. Environmental concerns are secondary to making a buck.

 

[corjulo]

I find most of the arguments for global warming rather tedious. Why? Nothing will change without the world population getting up in arms about the way their planet is headed.

Try to explain global warming to a Chinese auto plant worker who is earning 10x what his farmer parents made, with less work. Then ask him to quit buying his new cars, DVD players, and anything else that contributes to emissions. Won't happen. Do the same thing here in the US. Won't happen. Why?

As a society, we like to think we're "global" players. Ask each of us individually and you'll find that we're local, maybe regional players at best. The media (regardless of position) plays us off the global playing field when in reality, most of us could care less.

Pollution in rapidly developing countries like China, India and even parts of Mexico is going to go through the same episodes we went through in the early-mid 70's. They won't look at us and learn from our own as well as Europe's mistakes with dumping raw chemicals in the ground and rivers. They'll drive their economies up to compete on the now global market. Environmental concerns are secondary to making a buck.

This is exactly why I thought Kyoto was unworkable.

 

[corjulo]

I'm also quite concerned about the environment, since many of my hobbies have me spending a great deal of time in it. However, many of the global warming theories that we read in the papers, including the USA Today article posted, and the Kyoto Accords specifically, are at least as concerned with social engineering as they are environmental protections, and in many cases may actually be detrimental. Man is NOT the prime driver in global warming and cooling. If we disappeared today, the rate MAY change slightly, but global warming and cooling will continue as they have since the formation of the planet. Heck, check the effect cow emmissions have on the ozone layer.

One could argue cow omissions is a manmade situation

Left to their own devices cattle would populate far less of the planet and far less rain-forest forest would be cleared to make room for ranches.

 

[Brian Austin]

One could argue cow omissions is a manmade situation

Left to their own devices cattle would populate far less of the planet and far less rain-forest forest would be cleared to make room for ranches.

That's not a very nice position for a tree-hugger. You want to kill off all the cows now?

 

[Anthony]

One could argue cow omissions is a manmade situation

Left to their own devices cattle would populate far less of the planet and far less rain-forest forest would be cleared to make room for ranches.

Not to beat a dead horse or cow.

One could also say we'd have huge Buffalo heards if man had not slaughtered them. So what is the net difference in emissions Buffaloes then vs. cows today?

P.S. The waitress at a local restaurant asked me if I wanted the organic, free range chicken they had on special. I said, no I want the overly cramped, chemically altered, hormone and antibioitic injected chicken.

 

[Henning]

The climate has natural warming and cooling cycles. Natural events like volcano erruptions have much more effect on the ozone layer than anything man can do. I am all for reasonable environmental controls, but the Kyoto treaty is more of a socialist manifesto than anything resembling reasonable environmental policy.

Very true, that still however doesn't mean that the Carbon emmissions don't play a part, the question is to what degree. However, since that is the only variable we have any direct control over, so that is why it's the issue at the forefront of this topic. "If we stop all carbon emmissions today, will that assure the salvation of mankind?" I seriously doubt it, we got way more pressing problems, both ones we control and don't. Then of course there is the random astronomical event which makes everything moot.

The issue that to my surprise never gets tied together with the carbon emmission problem is than in reality, it is a self curing problem since the carbons come from the burning of fossil fuels, which in and of itself by definition is unsustainable.

The bottom line is for whichever reason, we WILL get away from fossil fuels sooner or later. The question lies in when, do we go ahead and switch now or wait till we are in a bind with running out of fossil fuels, and will changing over allow the climatological cycle to swing to pendulums end in a survivable zone?
Nobody can really answer the last and if they say they can they're lying, but that doesn't negate the fact that switching sooner than later would probably be the better for the latter, so it is the better hedge position to take.

 

[Brian Austin]

P.S. The waitress at a local restaurant asked me if I wanted the organic, free range chicken they had on special. I said, no I want the overly cramped, chemically altered, hormone and antibioitic injected chicken.

So....

"What do you do for a living?"

"I'm a chicken wrangler."

Uh-huh. That's one of them jobs I think I'd exaggerate a little.

"I provide organic, chemical free chicken to the teeming hordes of Americans who probably couldn't tell the difference anyway."

 

[Henning]

So we can trust neither the conservative nor liberal interpreters because they all have an agenda? Everybody has an agenda. You choose not to believe the ones with a conservative agenda. Many if not most "scientists" are liberal as are most media outlets. They promote the conclusions of the liberal scientists for their own agenda.

I think its unwise to effectively destroy our economy over the recommendations of non U.S. environmental policy outlined in the Kyoto treaty.

Although the growing of new technologies to install non carbon emmitting energy sources may prove a boon to our economy. The energy sector wants you to believe it will ruin the economy, they'll say anything to scare you away from touching record profits. The problem lies in the bonus system for the CEOs of these companies, and it's an indictment of the way business is handled these days. No longer are these companies owned built and controlled by families who are looking out for the long term future. They are being controlled by CEO and boards who will be there they hope 5 years or so, and their son or daughter will not be taking over. They want to extract the most money possible in the shortest time possible. The best way to achieve that is to rake in record profits so they pull out record bonuses. Now this strategy kind of puts R&D and Infrastructure investment on the back burner. Personnally I think the faster we get away from fossil fuels, the better off we will be economically and politically.

 

[Frank Browne]

You want to kill off all the cows now?

I'm certainly doing my part.

 

[Henning]

Relevence?

The point was to stop making comparisons of Joe TO Rush, as the intention of it being an insult was clear.

I don't think Joe would take it as an insult to be compared with Rush.