Global Warming

[Faustus]

There is nothing we can do about climate change, simply because we are not the cause. Global Warming is an unproven theory and is probably nothing but the usual leftist propaganda that plagues politics and pollutes the air we breathe. It was invented by tree hugger hippies for financial gain and political influence to further their twisted leftist agenda. The current climate change, as far as we can tell, is a natural process, until it is proven otherwise. The Earth has gone through countless periods of warming and cooling, and in many cases a lot more extreme than the climate change we are experiencing today. Liberal environmentalists use fear mongering to further their personal agendas. Politically and financially speaking, they have benefited enormously from this myth and created a whole industry out of a lie. It's the biggest con of the 20th century and continues to be in this century.

The study of 'Glaciology' tells us that these cycles are ongoing and extreme and have a 'sine wave' resemblance to them, and that they can be expected to repeat themselves into the future as they have in the past. With all due respect and in my once again humble opinion of recent

Edited January 29, 2008 by Faustus

[Northern Neil]

There is nothing we can do about climate change, because we are not the cause. Global Warming is an unproven theory and is probably nothing but the usual leftist propaganda that plagues politics and pollutes the air we breathe. It was invented by tree hugger hippies for financial gain and political influence to further their twisted leftist agenda. The current climate change, as far as we can tell, is a natural process, until proven otherwise. The Earth has gone through countless periods of warming and cooling, and in many cases a lot more extreme than the climate change we are experiencing today. Liberal environmentalists use fear mongering to further their personal agendas. Politically and financially speaking, they have benefited enormously from this myth and created a whole industry out of a lie. It's the biggest con of the 20th century and continues to be in this century.

 

Just to clarify, the warming of the climate is tangible and a fact, although it's insignificant and slight,

 

Although I started this discussion lightly with a cheap joke (see first comment) back in May last year, I stand aghast at comments such as this, which use the same 'It is only a theory' arguments as religious zealots use against the theory of evolution. In scientific parlance, ALL ideas are theories, in that they may be alterable by the finding of new information, or evidence which is found which gives rise to a better theory.

 

To anyone over 30, evidence that global warming is happening is not only obvious, but it is far from insignificant and slight. Further more, the math involved in drawing a direct correlation between the degree of warming and the carbon released by fossil fuel burning - in other words, our own activities - is far from complex.

 

When I was a child (I am now 46) in Northern England, snowy winters and iced up canals were a fact of life for three months a year. To date, we have only had three frosty mornings this winter, and almost no snow. Friends in Finland tell me that 15 years ago, the snow came in early November, and stayed until mid April. The snow finally came two weeks ago, and they expect it to melt in early March like it has done for the past five years. I ask, can anyone with an understanding of the slow - almost geological - time processes involved in natural climate change possibly say that our current climate change is natural, or 'slight'? Well, maybe they can, if they believe the world to have been formed in 4000 BC...

 

I wonder who the tree - hugging liberals are who are said to have advanced theories on global warming for their own agendas or financial gain. Yes, such people may agree with and like the theory, just as they may dislike other scientific theories which run contrary to their views. This neither validates nor invalidates the global warming theory to any degree whatsoever. When I investigate these findings on global warming and its causes, I see only conservative scientists who are studied in geology, meteorology, petrochemicals etc. These are dour, mathematical thinking scientists, who are telling us that the current theories are the best ones that fit the available evidence. Yes, the tree hugging liberal types are there of course saying 'I told you so', but any exploration of the facts beyond the highly partisan Fox News or Britain's Daily Mail will show analytical types that these news agencies themselves have their own agendas, and largely support precisely those sections of our world who have the most (in the short term) to lose, should we all have to tighten the belt and curb our lifestyles.

 

Global Warming is a theory as proven as any other which has been developed by scientific method and empirical processes. Like any other theory, those with the most to lose from its findings are the ones most likely to dispute it. Religious zealots do not like evolution, flat earthers do not like plate tectonics, creationists do not like cosmology and the Big Bang. Affluent people with comfortable lifestyles they may have to curb do not like current theories on global warming.

 

All people who dislike various theories use the most extreme advocates of those theories to discredit them - wether it is 'cold mathematical pragmatists' with respect to evolution and cosmology, or 'Tree Hugging Liberals' with respect to the subject at hand. It is an old tried and tested method of advancing ones particular brand of propaganda, and one which sadly remains quite effective.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Octavius]

Dr. Sir Humbert Wexford-Lorick of the Hookermann Institute, in Indiana, has a working theory that the climate is not changing, rather the mean temperature of humans has decreased by 0.7786 degrees Fahrenheit, thus making it feel hotter than it actually is. This is a result of an over supply of 'free radicals' which must, (according to his theory), be completely eliminated. See: http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/free-radicals.htm

[Primus Pilus]

To anyone over 30, evidence that global warming is happening is not only obvious, but it is far from insignificant and slight. Further more, the math involved in drawing a direct correlation between the degree of warming and the carbon released by fossil fuel burning - in other words, our own activities - is far from complex.

 

I'm over 30 and it's cause is not obvious to me. I'm not opposed to the idea of climate change, because clearly it is changing (though isn't it theoretically always changing?). In any case, assuming even that man made climate change is absolute truth, it's the notion that controlling this climate change through the current energy reduction concepts and strategies that bothers me. I am honestly more apt to believe that the mere existence of some 7 billion living human consumers (and growing at alarming rates) is more concerning than the burning of fossil fuels alone. Of course, the two have a symbiotic relationship, but I doubt that even the complete elimination of fossil fuel usage would stop the growing environmental concerns caused by our enormous human population. I'm also not convinced that the complete elimination of humanity would stop climate change, whether this would be perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous.

 

I am not trying to say that the there aren't things humans can do to better the environment, but legislating restrictions on all of us because of the possibility... without proof of cause or proof of positive result... bothers me immensely.

[Northern Neil]

I meant to say that that to anyone over 30, the fact it is happening is obvious - not that the causes of it happening are obvious. Forgive me for being unclear on this. My personal view is that our activities are the primary cause, but I accept there are some holes in the theory. However, not everyones doubts of this theory are as measured and clearly thought out as your own Primus, and I find it exasperating when some people reject it out of hand simply because it implies lifestyle change they do not want to make. Linking it to left wing ideology and the antics of new - agers and other fringe groups is quite spurious, and offers no scientific reason whatsoever as to why it may be wrong.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Melvadius]

To anyone over 30, evidence that global warming is happening is not only obvious, but it is far from insignificant and slight. Further more, the math involved in drawing a direct correlation between the degree of warming and the carbon released by fossil fuel burning - in other words, our own activities - is far from complex.

 

I'm over 30 and it's cause is not obvious to me. I'm not opposed to the idea of climate change, because clearly it is changing (though isn't it theoretically always changing?). In any case, assuming even that man made climate change is absolute truth, it's the notion that controlling this climate change through the current energy reduction concepts and strategies that bothers me. I am honestly more apt to believe that the mere existence of some 7 billion living human consumers (and growing at alarming rates) is more concerning than the burning of fossil fuels alone. Of course, the two have a symbiotic relationship, but I doubt that even the complete elimination of fossil fuel usage would stop the growing environmental concerns caused by our enormous human population. I'm also not convinced that the complete elimination of humanity would stop climate change, whether this would be perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous.

 

I am not trying to say that the there aren't things humans can do to better the environment, but legislating restrictions on all of us because of the possibility... without proof of cause or proof of positive result... bothers me immensely.

 

I can only reiterate that the IPCC findings are presented on the basis of peer reviewed scientific studies. In my view anything which can get several thousand scientists to agree on it stands a fair chance of being the best "proof of cause or proof of positive result" around that the activities of man over the last 500 years are significantly responsible for the current changes in global weather patterns. Although I would rewrite that quote as "proof that human activity has had detrimental effects on global weather".

[Primus Pilus]

I meant to say that that to anyone over 30, the fact it is happening is obvious - not that the causes of it happening are obvious. Forgive me for being unclear on this. My personal view is that our activities are the primary cause, but I accept there are some holes in the theory. However, not everyones doubts of this theory are as measured and clearly thought out as your own Primus, and I find it exasperating when some people reject it out of hand simply because it implies lifestyle change they do not want to make. Linking it to left wing ideology and the antics of new - agers and other fringe groups is quite spurious, and offers no scientific reason whatsoever as to why it may be wrong.

 

Didn't mean to suggest that you were unclear... was just having a bit of fun playing on words with your statement for no other purpose than levity. Unfortunately, typed responses don't often give the the impression one is intending.

 

I can only reiterate that the IPCC findings are presented on the basis of peer reviewed scientific studies. In my view anything which can get several thousand scientists to agree on it stands a fair chance of being the best "proof of cause or proof of positive result" around that the activities of man over the last 500 years are significantly responsible for the current changes in global weather patterns. Although I would rewrite that quote as "proof that human activity has had detrimental effects on global weather".

 

I understand your point, but there are many others who disagree. Do they all have an agenda? I surely don't know, but again, my main concern is being forced to do something that is frivolous or ineffective because of politics. There is of course good intentioned science within all the findings, but I know there is also good intentioned science that is contradictory.

[Moonlapse]

Global Warming: Risks and Consequences

 

This is footage of a Reason conference discussing the merits/disadvantages of the different policies currently being considered. I apologize to any statists.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The IPCC findings were not co-signed by thousands of climatologists. Many--maybe most--signatories were simply bureaucrats working for international agencies.

 

In any case, there is a nice web site--Climate Debate Daily--aggregating the latest news supporting each side of the global warming debate.

[Faustus]

I can only reiterate that the IPCC findings are presented on the basis of peer reviewed scientific studies.

Melvadius,

Since you have made that statement, have you verified the peer review of the scientific findings?

Would you please look at these two items and see if there is any conflict between the claim of "peer review" and these items? I'm not informed as to how I might find some actual proof of that claim, and I would like to be able to do so to the extent I able.

ITEM ONE "Peer Review? What Peer Review?"

ITEM TWO "Summary for Policy Makers - PDF"

How does the claim of peer review stand up to this information?

Have you seen any verification of that claim prior to this time?

 

If I have missed some 'particular' posted here at the forum up to this point please just provide a link if you will.

 

For those interested here is a quote from the first part of ITEM ONE

Summary for Policy Makers

INTRODUCTION

 

The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.

 

The comments for Working Group I are the only set of reviewers' comments to be made available to the public, and only then thanks to use of US Freedom of Information laws rather than a willingness on the part of the IPCC to allow people to examine the material. Surely all people should be able to examine the involvement and thinking of their governments and the reviewers from their own countries because it is the people who will most certainly bear the economic and political costs of any resultant actions.

 

REVIEWERS AND COMMENTS

 

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.

 

At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.

 

The number of reviewers who made just one comment on a chapter varied between 12.6% and 32% (i.e. almost one-third) of the reviewers commenting on that chapter. For four chapters, fewer than six comments were made by more than 50% of the reviewers who commented. For another four chapters, the figure was between 40% and 50%.

 

Reviewers' comments come in all forms. Many are simple corrections to spelling and grammar, others point out inconsistencies, some ask for a change of wording, many ask for expressions of less certainty, others suggest extensive references that should be included. A minority requests a change of wording and provides extensive reference material to support their statements.

 

One response to a reviewer’s comment is worth mention - "Rejected. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is full of errors. There are many more papers in support of the statement than against it." - But this erroneously implies that a consensus of papers determines what will be included, which of course is not very different to claiming a consensus determines a scientific truth.

 

Faustus

Edited January 30, 2008 by Faustus

[Melvadius]

Therein lies the common problem of not everyone happy with how independent bodies operate, differences of opinion in findings and the subsequent use/misuse of statistics to prove that its their ball and they want to go home.

 

I suppose that having seen some of the underlying statistical evidence I am more inclined to believe in their independence of thought and the IPCC findings as a whole than those of individuals and/or bodies with what appear to be vested interests in negating those findings - including a significant number of the US pressure groups.

 

Using a table of partially 'negative' responses from 3-400 people to indicate that there was no general support from the rest of the (approx.) 4000 people who read a draft document strikes me as trying to use a double negative. Either the other reviewers thought there was no need to respond as the original research was correct or else they thought that their views would not be heard. Having dealt with several individuals from 'environmental' and other NGO bodies over the years I can assure you that they would have been vocal in rejecting draft versions if they thought there was anything wrong with the underlying research. It also wouldn't have been the relatively minor changes/ inclusions of one or two words that were prominently identified in the article you found.

[Faustus]

Then I take it you have no place I or others can go to verify claims of peer review?

[Melvadius]

To be totally neutral and to allow you to draw your own conclusions I would suggest browsing some of the information on the IPCC website about the individual reports to get a better flavour of how they are organised:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm

 

It may be worth considering how many different nationalities were involved in writing different chapters for each of the reports (the WG I & III group are probably best for that):

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg1/wg1authors.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg3/wg3authors.pdf

 

The fact sheets also provide information on the Peer Review process:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/press/ar4-factsheet1.htm

 

Once you have a few names of individuals involved it may be worth checking out the organizations they belong to and/or what their qualifications are for their work - then compare the antecedents of a few of the climate change cynics and the organizations supporting them.

[Faustus]

Thank you very much, Malvadius

 

and

Once you have a few names of individuals involved it may be worth checking out the organizations they belong to and/or what their qualifications are for their work - then compare the antecedents of a few of the climate change cynics and the organizations supporting them.

 

I intend to do that, on both sides of the question.

 

 

Thanks again for your work

[Kosmo]

There are never easy solutions

 

"2 studies conclude that biofuels are not so green after all"

 

"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these "green" fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.

 

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

 

These studies for the first time take a comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development. The destruction of natural ecosystems - whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America - increases the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because the ecosystems are the planet's natural sponge for carbon emissions..."

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/hea...fuel.php?page=1