Global warming, thorougly debunked

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich said:

What I am trying to say is, our modern social perspective (aka "common sense"), based on our current socialogical environment, is not necessarily the appropriate reference for scientific analysis of long timespan ecological issues that predate recorded history by a factor of hundreds of thousands of years.

Right, so let's let science decide.



Oh, wait, as I said, credible scientists on boths sides disagree, and both sides go back as far as they can using cool (pun intendend) things like ice core samples, etc.



And yet, the scientists disagree.



So when the scientists disagree...what do we have left?



For me, we are left with common sense. Adkins probably isn't as good a diet and way of life as eating less but a balanced diet and exercising more. My common sense tells me that. Less man-made emmissions in the air, not more, is probably better for the longterm well being of our global population...my common sense tells me that. Until all (or even most) of the credible scientists get on your side and agree that more man-made emissions is BETTER for humanity, then I am going to think the way I do and assume that less is probably better.



Note that I never said I agreed with all the hyperbole of the Global Warming threat. I have only said that I can't help but think that LESS man-made emissions is better than more. I don't see my way of thinking that radical.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Also, another zero-emission (I know, I know..."no such thing") car is "almost ready"...this one runs on compressed air, costs $3 to fill the tank, goess 200 to 300Km on a fillup, and you change the oil (vegetable oil) every 50,000Km.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Well put, TJR.



Just today, I got the latest edition of "Medical Product Manufacturing News", a trade publication for our industry. In it, the editor writes about "An Inconvenient Truth" and its impact on our industry, and seems to sum up my take on the subject in some of her opening paragraphs...

In the movie ("An Inconvenient Truth"), Gore predicts dire consequences resulting from global warming. He claims that if the trend continues, deaths resulting from it will reach 300,000 in 25 years. He also says that more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050 from its effects.



Those are pretty ominous statistics--if you believe them. To be fair, there are also a lot of serious-minded people who have reserverations about the theory of global warming.



But whatever you believe, it's hard to argue with the benefits of decreasing our impact on the environment and reducing the amount of waste going to landfills.

And that's the biggest issue I have with many (though clearly not all) of the people who believe that global warming isn't actually happening--they try to use that belief to justify reducing/eliminating environmental protections of all types. "Smog? Acid rain? Who cares! It's not impacting global warming, according to the studies I choose to believe!"



Is global warming real? The truth is--Who knows? Definitely not Gore, or Bush, or Stern, or any of the authors any of them cite. So given that, the common sense approach that TJR discusses dictates a conservative approach (and I mean "conservative" in an environmental sense, not in a political sense). We should do what we can to limit the potential impact, at least until we can know more definitively what the actual impact is/will be.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks, Bill V, that last sentence:

But whatever you believe, it's hard to argue with the benefits of decreasing our impact on the environment and reducing the amount of waste going to landfills

...pretty much sums up my position....Better safe than sorry!



I see people on both sides throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in their haste to discredit what the other side is saying.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

And more fuel for the fire.



An article that claims that the Toyota Prius Hybrid outdoes Hummer in environmental damage...

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, Bill, I believe that people tend to do what's in their best interest. I pollute less as a function of my best interest not to waste energy that causes unneeded pollution.



The problem I have is that an entire group of people want to force me and the rest of society to pay, one way or another, to service their very subjective view of what is "appropriate" consumption.



This is about mandates from people interested in controlling the actions of others. And in their campaign to bring those mandates to fruition, they have gotten people, such as yourselves, to accept as a baseline for your decision making, a bunch of things that may or may not be true. Things which require far more scientific firmness to be a driver of social policy.



Hence, my use of the term brainwashing.

 

[Eric Pennal]

Things which require far more scientific firmness to be a driver of social policy.

The problem I have with this position, is that by the time we have enough firm scientific proof to sway, even, social (and political) conservatives, it may be too late to reverse the damage.



That's why I lean toward the possibility that global warming is a result of human activity, and that we should start acting now to reverse the trend. If that turns out to not be the case, then at least, no harm has been done from that endeavor. If it DOES turn out to be true, then the sooner we started to change the way we interact with our environment, the better.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Pollution = Bad



This conservative is with you.



Global Warming = Maybe exists



I might give you that one.



Global Warming is Caused by Humans?



No thanks. Until I see irrefutable proof (non exists as of today) that MANKIND is the cause of, there is no need for me to get all uptight about my "carbon footprint" or any other such crap (which by the way is around 80 if I were to believe the BP Ammco site). My meat footprint is also quite high as my highly developed brain requires animal protein to function at capacity. Guess what.... yours does too.



I am not a scholar, but I am a thinker.



I am also an Engineer, which is much like science. We hypothesize, test and either agree with or disprove our origional hypothysis. Unfortunately when your being funded by the Teresa Heinz Foundation to the tune of $250,000 or from Greenpeace or MoveOn.org or similar groups, you have the clear distinction of "prooving" the hypothesys of Humans Are Causeing Global Warming, or you lose your funding and your credibility/livlihood/job/etc.



Take for instance the wonderful socialist who spoke out from the Weather Channel who said that any metorologist who disagrees with the THEORY of Global Warming should have the AMS certification pulled. It just so happens that she hosts a special show on The Weather Channel focusing directly on the affects of Global Warming on the weather patterns around the world.... conflict of interest? Naaaaa, Whacha Talkin' 'Bout Willis?



Here's something else to consider....

The same models that are used to predict Global Warming are used to predict weather patterns for the next 7 days. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT THAT? For instance.... this past weekend in St Louis, on Thursday of last week they were calling for highs in the 50's and sunshine for this past saturday. In reality it was 30 with heavy flurries.



Yep, I can believe their 50 year models at the same time I can beleive their 3 day models....



Nope. Pass. As I said, I am a thinker.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich,



Regarding your last post, I agree that there should be convincing evidence before we institute public and social policy; but then, I never argued that. You've seen my on this site long enough to know I am a reasonable person, I hope.



My arguement was that we, as individuals, regardless of what the pet scientists on both sides of this debate as well as other debates where scientists disagree owe it to ourselves and each other to act in a reasonably responsible and "conservative" (as BillV said) manner.



So that's my position, just in case you missed it, because I and others have restated it several times and you keep going back to your position about social policies and being told what to do by politicians.



Maybe if more people thought as I did it wouldn't get to the point that politicians would have to tell us what to do.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

You've seen my on this site long enough to know I am a reasonable person, I hope.

HAH! You are in denial!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Wow.



Gavin that hurts.



Really.



Where have I ever been "unreasonable?"



I consider anyone that will listen to reason and act accordingly a reasonable person. The ability to see and consider both sides of a debate, unemotionally, is in my opinion the nature of a reasonable person. I think I do that pretty well.



I may be opinionated, and my opinions may be different than yours or others, but I dare say that even my opinions and my expression of them haven't been unreasonable.



An unreasonable person would say things like: "Well that's just stupid and I'm not going to listen to you!", or might when asked to explain themselves say something like: "Because that's the way it's always been!", or something like that. Such people can't be reasoned with and are therefore unreasonable.



I'm not one of those people...I don't think!



Or maybe you have a different definition of "reasonable"...maybe to you a reasonable person must think like you and share your opinions. If so, that would be unreasonable.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

TJR, what if...



We allow humans to continue raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere to 500ppm, and we experience an average global temperature rise of 2 degrees centigrade. At 500ppm, developing nations will not be hindered from primarily using fossil fuels to gain their most economical path to development, and as a result, there would be a significant reduction of poverty and a signficant increase in average lifespan in those developing nations.



Is more CO2 "bad" in that equation? Isn't that a reasonable question for a social scientist to analyze? In other words, the fact that fossil fuels deliver benefits to societies in many different forms, may make them a reasonable choice over alternative plans. Your consumption of fossil fuels helps the local, national and international economy. Is that bad? Worse than increased CO2 emissions?



Point being, we have no solid frame of reference to make the kind of moral judgement you suggest about our use of CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's biological food and waste. But you believe you should emit less of it, because some part of society is asking you, partly as a matter of science, partly as a matter of faith, that more is bad.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, we can play "WHAT IF" all day.



I'm not advocating that we hold back developing nations. Have them go for it. But as they develop, if that requires increased emissions of any kind, and the developed countries have it in their power, ability and economy to lower emissions, why not do both?



Why not reduce when you can?



The only reason NOT to is if you think there is credible scientific evidence that MORE emissions is better, overall, and clearly, as you say, there is none.



My only point was: "why not reduce if you can?"



P.S. Rich, do you work out? Do you exercise? Do you drink caffeine? Do you drink a serving of alchohol a day? Do you follow any type of a diet program? Are you a vegetarian, a vegan, a meat eater? Do you take a multi-vitamin (the latest)?



Maybe you don't, but there are people all over the world that do many of these. Each of these practices and life choices and actions have had scientific controversy surrounding them and experts on both sides that have claimed different things, often reversing themselves over time (sometimes several times).



So, in the face of all that controversy and flip-flopping it often seems that moderation, not excess, would be the "safe" alternative



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

I'm not advocating that we hold back developing nations. Have them go for it. But as they develop, if that requires increased emissions of any kind, and the developed countries have it in their power, ability and economy to lower emissions, why not do both?



Why not reduce when you can?

Because it's never free. All choices have costs and/or consequences. And if you make choices without being able to reliably predict consequences, while it looks and sounds noble, is it truthfully a correct choice? Who knows?



The Toyota Prius article from yesterday is a great case in point. I have no idea if it's valid. But what if buying a Prius to reduce CO2 emissions actually causes more environmental damage in other ways? Should we consider such things? Economists and social scientists who weigh in on the CO2 debate are usually the first ones to point out that there is more at stake here than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Your basic premis in this discussion is that "less is more." You may well be right. I'm simply saying you are acting on that as a matter of faith, because the science isn't there to confirm your convictions.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich I posted the Prius article to show that I can see both sides to the debate here, and show that science and evidence on both sides of such debate are easy to debunk by seemingly credible folk.



I haven't really picked a side. But it seems you have.



Your side and opinion seems to me to be:

Global warming is a myth, so light 'em and burn 'em if you've got em...fill up the sky with crap because there is no compelling scientific evidence that it hurts anything!

My opinion is:

Global Warming is probably crap, but regardless let's do what we can to keep the skies cleaner.

I may have exaggerated a little, but as I listen to you, the above SEEMS to be what you are saying.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Maybe this is a better way to state my position:



I don't know whether or not human induced global warming is a threat to humanity. The data looks suspect to me. The language and imagery being used to sell the threat is highly suspect. The primary people selling the threat have a poor reputation for integrity, and a well established reputation for politicizing and dogmatic approach.



Hence, I am a deep skeptic.



Dr. Malcom Ross, of Harvard University, expresses it more simply:



"Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism."

 

[Gavin Allan]

Or maybe you have a different definition of "reasonable"...maybe to you a reasonable person must think like you and share your opinions. If so, that would be unreasonable.

OK-- maybe it would be unreasonable, but you would still be WRONG! :lol:



TJR, I was just giving you some "business" and didn't mean to be offensive. I guess what I should have said is that "I am impressed by your level of conviction and willingness to assert your position". Both you and Caymen have strong opinions and do not back down. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it can be frustrating to folks who have a counter view.



I have been told that I am stubborn (which I didn't really believe). I usually see both sides of an argument, and see much of the world as gray--there are few absolutes. However, I can see where I do get a little stubborn if I am convinced my view of "right" is right.



Anyway, I don't know where I was going with this ramble, but I do know that I appreciate all the great information that I get on this board. I also appreciate the diversity of opinion that I also see on this board. It is great that we can discuss this stuff and learn more about others and how they see the world. I also appreciate the off-topic discussions here, since SportTrac owners are much smarter and better-looking than other vehicle owners! I probably get more information and advice from the off-topic posts than I do the SportTrac posts.

 

[TrainTrac]

Should we take steps to reduce pollution? Yes. But it is completely arrogant to believe that mankind has had as much of an impact on the environment as we're being led to believe. Earth has been in existence and continuing to evolve for over four billion years, and we're supposed to believe that man actions over the last few hundred years have had such a catastrophic impact that the polar ice caps are going to melt in 20 years? Give me a break! If that's the case, then why are temps rising on other planets in our solar system? Damn Martians in their SUVs!



The bottom line about the whole global warming movement is that it's about government intruding more and more into the lives of individuals and businesses. Bills are even now being proposed in some states, and at the federal level to outlaw incandescent light bulbs!



George Will posted an excellent column today about excess government regulation:

Regulating Interior Designers



By George Will

Thursday, March 22, 2007



PHOENIX -- In the West, where the deer and the antelope used to play, the spirit of "leave us alone" government used to prevail. But governments of Western states are becoming more like those elsewhere, alas.



Consider the minor -- but symptomatic -- matter of the government-abetted aggression by "interior designers" against mere "decorators," or against interior designers whom other interior designers wish to demote to the status of decorators. Some designers think decorators should be a lesser breed without the law on its side.



Those categories have blurry borders. Essentially, interior designers design an entire space, sometimes including structural aspects; decorators have less comprehensive and more mundane duties -- matching colors, selecting furniture, etc.



In New Mexico, anyone can work as an interior designer. But it is a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison, to list yourself on the Internet or in the Yellow Pages as, or to otherwise call yourself, an "interior designer" without being certified as such. Those who favor this censoring of truthful commercial speech are a private group that controls, using an exam administered by a private national organization, access to that title.



This is done in the name of "professionalization," but it really amounts to cartelization. Persons in the business limit access by others -- competitors -- to full participation in the business.



Being able to control the number of one's competitors, and to dispense the pleasure of status, is nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if you have a legislature willing to enact "titling laws." They regulate -- meaning restrict -- the use of job descriptions. Such laws often are precursors of occupational licensing, which usually means a mandatory credentialing process to control entry into a profession with a particular title.



In Nevada, such regulation has arrived. So in Las Vegas, where almost nothing is illegal, it is illegal -- unless you are licensed, or employed by someone licensed -- to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, more than 69 inches tall. A Nevada bureaucrat says that "placement of furniture" is an aspect of "space planning" and therefore is regulated -- restricted to a "registered interior designer."



Placing furniture without a license? Heaven forfend. Such regulations come with government rationing of the right to practice a profession. Who benefits? Creating artificial scarcity of services raises the prices of those entitled to perform the services. The pressure for government-created scarcity is intensifying because the general public -- rank amateurs -- are using the Internet to purchase things and advice, bypassing designers.



What has happened in Las Vegas will not stay there. It will come to Arizona, and to other states that do n

 

[Bill V]

Rich--Here's a question for you, that might seem completely unrelated, but I hope to show that it might not be. I think I know your position on the subject, and based on that, it seems your stance on the subject might appear to be a bit hypocritical. (Don't worry about that accusation, as I think my opinion on both subjects is opposite of yours, and therefore I'm just as hypocritical.)



Should baseball players who test positive for illegal performance-enhancing substances be barred from the game and from entry to the Hall of Fame?



The majority of scientists who have gone on record with an opinion on the tests for these substances say that they are reliable. However, a smaller number disagree, and say that they're inconclusive at best, and that baseball shouldn't rely on them to make such decisions. Further, most of the scientific opinions in favor of the test validity have been funded either by the testing companies (trying to sell their tests) or baseball (trying to create an image of being tough on these substances), and therefore can be dismissed by the skeptics.



If, as I suspect from your previous stated opinions on the subject, you favor throwing the bums out, you're basing this on science whose basis is at least as shaky as global warming, if not more so--the type of shakiness that you're railing against when it comes to global warming.



Like I said, I'm no better, just the other way around--I'm all for doing what we can to avoid any possibility of global warming, regardless of whether the science ends up being true or not, but when an athlete claims to be innocent of a drug test where he tested positive, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because of the holes in the science behind that testing. And I can't say I'm anywhere close to resolving that obvious hypocrisy. But I wanted to get your thoughts...

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, first and foremost, I am in favor of baseball doing what it thinks is in it's best interest as a business entity. With the exception of the anti-trust issue, I don't think my opinion should matter, since I don't own a major league baseball team.



Second, the science of testing the human body for chemical substances, despite being a complex physiological topic, is somewhat finite in comparison to a vast, chaotic system such as the climate of Earth. In particular, substance abuse testing can adhere directly to scientific principles of experimental observation and reproducable results. Climate defies that core scientific process because it's currently impossible to reproduce changes in the Earth's climate.



I'm sorry for the wrongly accused/prosecuted baseball players based on flawed test results. I would hope that baseball uses the best testing method available. However, the cost of such mistakes can be measured in a handful of careers. When measuring with millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake, significant assurances of the science are needed before endorsing a course of action.