Global Warming Watch

[citizenzen]

Let's play a little "I'll show you mine and you show me yours".

I was going to paste an article from Wikipedia's Scientific opinion on climate change, Statements by concurring organizations

Unfortunately, the list was so long that I received this error: The text that you have entered is too long (43913 characters). Please shorten it to 15000 characters long.

So what you got? I'd be happy to play this game all day long.

 

[Avi]

.

Take cigarette smoking for example. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. But all the public hears about is nicotine. Are we doing a disservice by not focusing on the other 3999 chemicals? Would it help to reduce smoking if we publicly examined each component in detail? And isn't it interesting that after decades of study nobody's proved that cigarettes cause cancer? So it's no surprise nobody's proven greenhouse gases cause climate change. But let's not get lost in the message that is intended for public consumption. That message has to be simple and focused to have any impact.

CZ, the CO2 issue is a lot like cigarette smoking. The big oil companies cannot admit CO2 is a problem because they have to protect their stock prices. It took 25 years for cancer researchers to prove smoking causes leukemia beyond all reasonable doubt. It will take about as long with CO2.

The good news is that forward thinking scientists are already studying sequestration. This is not magic, it is sound science and engineering.

The reality of what is SG says is that people have an undeniable demand for energy. They want to drive their SUVs and take their jet flight vacations to Europe (I do love that great European food and drinks, I think I need to start a separate thread on this soon ). So at some point we have to pay for these luxuries by developing responsible environmental practices. Ultimately, the rubber hits the road.

The good news, for me about this tread, is that it made me realize there is another thing I like about the European approach - it is the Kyoto Protocol. Europeans are more environmentally savvy than we Americans, anyone care to dispute that fact ?

 

[seattlegal]

SG, if America were a more sophisticated society perhaps we could frame the discussion in another manner, but in order to communicate effectively with the masses the message needs to be simplified.

Take cigarette smoking for example. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. But all the public hears about is nicotine. Are we doing a disservice by not focusing on the other 3999 chemicals? Would it help to reduce smoking if we publicly examined each component in detail? And isn't it interesting that after decades of study nobody's proved that cigarettes cause cancer? So it's no surprise nobody's proven greenhouse gases cause climate change. But let's not get lost in the message that is intended for public consumption. That message has to be simple and focused to have any impact.

Whether you think that information is based upon faulty science is another matter. As a graphic designer that question is beyond my limited scope of knowledge. But I do have to ask you on what basis do you dismiss the consensus of the scientific community? It seems almost as silly as being on the Intelligent Design side of evolution. Could you enlighten me as to why you think they are wrong?

Reasons for my skepticism:

• I am looking the last 600 million years of the history of the earth, which shows that today's greenhouse gas levels are the extreme low end of what they have been during that entire period. The earth was in an ice age during the late Ordovician, with massive glaciation and mass extinctions, when CO2 levels were way over 4000 parts per million, as compared to today's CO2 levels of less than 400 parts per million. Are the scientists who are proponents of AGW looking at all the data, which would punch a very large hole in their greenhouse gas theory, or have they only examined the data that fits into their theory? {Biased sample fallacy}
• Correlation does not prove causation. When liquid warms, it releases its dissolved gases. Therefore, when the oceans warm, they would release their dissolved CO2. This basic scientific principle (which can be readily tested, measured and replicated--the measure of sound science,) would indicate that increased CO2 levels would be an effect of ocean warming. It does not prove it as the cause of the oceans warming.
• We are currently in an interglacial period of an ice age. Ice ages have come and gone throughout earth's history. Man has only been here for a very short while, and mankind had no part in the coming and going of past ice ages. (But of course, mankind likes to think that he is in control of these things.)
• Political entities and/or special interests calling for "scientific research" with pre-specified conclusions (see the EPA link in Avi's post #186 for government mandated, or other research sponsored by oil companies for the other side of the coin) is known as cherry-picking the data, which is then reinforced with funding granted to those produce studies with pre-specified conclusions. This is not unbiased science, it is scriptwriting. It might make for some good science fiction, but don't expect it to uncover the truth.

 

[seattlegal]

Europeans are more environmentally savvy than we Americans, anyone care to dispute that fact ?

Oh yes, environmentally savvy Europeans.
BBC NEWS | Health | Prozac 'found in drinking water'

 

[citizenzen]

Reasons for my skepticism...

There's certainly nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

I wish I had been more skeptical when I kept hearing about the "Eight Nobel Prize winning economists who promised that NAFTA would be a good thing for America".

But despite your assertions SG, I'm not swayed to change my position. Of course I will be happy to reconsider it in the event that more compelling evidence is brought forth and I'm sure the same could be said for you.

 

[Avi]

Oh yes, environmentally savvy Europeans.
BBC NEWS | Health | Prozac 'found in drinking water'

Haha, a great way to calm down those Europeans, put some Prozac in their drinking water

 

[seattlegal]

There's certainly nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

I wish I had been more skeptical when I kept hearing about the "Eight Nobel Prize winning economists who promised that NAFTA would be a good thing for America".

I'm not a fan of NAFTA, or CAFTA either, for that matter.

But despite your assertions SG, I'm not swayed to change my position. Of course I will be happy to reconsider it in the event that more compelling evidence is brought forth and I'm sure the same could be said for you.

Personally, one part of me finds all this hysteria over carbon dioxide to be as humorous as the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoopla. However, it really gives me pause when governments fall for this stuff, like the government of Alisa Viejo, California almost did. I see this CO2 frenzy as being analogous to the dihydrogen monoxide shenanigans.

 

[ciberpy]

Do you feel it is possible for us (humans) to make it get better or is it a course destined to happen?
I would be very interested in hearing more of what you have to say about this, if & when you are up to it.

Absolutely, yes... many ideas come my way that could help make it better today, and many more ideas should be coming across others. It takes energy to make a mess, and it takes energy to clean it up. Plenty of energy is available... a hurricane or a tornado is a tremendous amount of wasted energy. By increasing evaporation hurricanes can be prevented altogether.

 

[Bandit]

Absolutely, yes... many ideas come my way that could help make it better today, and many more ideas should be coming across others. It takes energy to make a mess, and it takes energy to clean it up. Plenty of energy is available... a hurricane or a tornado is a tremendous amount of wasted energy. By increasing evaporation hurricanes can be prevented altogether.

Right, or at least slow them down.
Would you agree that we are able to manipulate the weather to a certain degree? and in different ways?

 

[Bandit]

Reasons for my skepticism:

• I am looking the last 600 million years of the history of the earth,

LOL. How can you compare what happened 6 million years ago with no humans to today with 7 billion humans? How would anyone know what it was like 6 million years ago, honestly? If the earth goes thru changes on its own, & considering man is part of the earth, wouldn't erath eventually heal itself by ridding of the thing causing the harm? There had to be times when man could never had survived due to the unsettled elements, while other things would -depending on the age. Is that what you mean?

 

[Bandit]

Personally, one part of me finds all this hysteria over carbon dioxide to be as humorous as the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoopla.

That did not last very long anyway. I think most states have dumped the auto emissions thingy except for the bigger cities.

 

[Bandit]

I think the scientific method is you proving your theory right... not asking others to prove it wrong.

That is true -but as long as it can't be proven wrong, the idea gets to stay on the table as a valid theory, which explains why we have so many theories that no one agrees on.

 

[Bandit]

I just got my 5 posts in a row, CZZ.

 

[Bandit]

CZ, the CO2 issue is a lot like cigarette smoking. The big oil companies cannot admit CO2 is a problem because they have to protect their stock prices. It took 25 years for cancer researchers to prove smoking causes leukemia beyond all reasonable doubt. It will take about as long with CO2.

Yah. and now smokers are being treated like criminals, which is totally wrong. I dont smoke, but I still think the laws are more about control than helping people, even though smoking does not help anyone.

25 years would be awesome if they can get this down & prove something. I might still be alive to see it.

 

[Bandit]

There is no consensus in the scientific community concerning global warming.
For every respected member who says aye there is another who says nay.
Even a cursory survey of the available data will reveal that.

So I will put it this way:

Global warming is driven by the sun and our spatial relationship within the galaxy (there are zones within the galaxy and passing through them changes things for the planets as they pass through them).
Co2 and other greenhouse gases are then a symptom of a much larger cause.

Now, prove that wrong.

are you saying global warming is impossible? or just that it has not been proven yet? What about the earth with no ozone layer? & what is destroying that?

Can't you make something get warmer without light or fire?

 

[seattlegal]

That did not last very long anyway. I think most states have dumped the auto emissions thingy except for the bigger cities.

Dihydrogen monoxide is a scientific way to say water. The scare surrounding it was a joke to show how easily people fall for things. Making them afraid of water is one way to do it... Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

 

[Bandit]

Dihydrogen monoxide is a scientific way to say water. The scare surrounding it was a joke to show how easily people fall for things. Making them afraid of water is one way to do it... Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

That was fun.
How did you find out I belong to the Scorched Earth Party?

We have to remember that before the 70's, people believed that any substance could be diluted with water and not harm anything. That is as long as you live at the beginning of the stream & not the middle or end. You can swim in the Santa Monica Bay just don't go by the storm runoff & drain signs and you can only put your two big toes in.

 

[seattlegal]

SG, if America were a more sophisticated society perhaps we could frame the discussion in another manner, but in order to communicate effectively with the masses the message needs to be simplified.

Take cigarette smoking for example. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. But all the public hears about is nicotine. Are we doing a disservice by not focusing on the other 3999 chemicals? Would it help to reduce smoking if we publicly examined each component in detail? And isn't it interesting that after decades of study nobody's proved that cigarettes cause cancer? So it's no surprise nobody's proven greenhouse gases cause climate change. But let's not get lost in the message that is intended for public consumption. That message has to be simple and focused to have any impact.

Whether you think that information is based upon faulty science is another matter. As a graphic designer that question is beyond my limited scope of knowledge. But I do have to ask you on what basis do you dismiss the consensus of the scientific community? It seems almost as silly as being on the Intelligent Design side of evolution. Could you enlighten me as to why you think they are wrong?

Hmm, let's see, we have to dumb the message down and make a scapegoat out of carbon dioxide in the hopes that it will raise the population's consciousness? Sounds even more like a religion.

{And here I thought you were a Buddhist, Citizenzen. }

There's certainly nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

I wish I had been more skeptical when I kept hearing about the "Eight Nobel Prize winning economists who promised that NAFTA would be a good thing for America".

But despite your assertions SG, I'm not swayed to change my position. Of course I will be happy to reconsider it in the event that more compelling evidence is brought forth and I'm sure the same could be said for you.

Well, I'm going to start working on the consciousness-raising part early, OK?

 

[shawn]

are you saying global warming is impossible?

or just that it has not been proven yet?

How do you figure I said anything like that?
Maybe read the post

Global warming is driven by the sun and our spatial relationship within the galaxy (there are zones within the galaxy and passing through them changes things for the planets as they pass through them).
Co2 and other greenhouse gases are then a symptom of a much larger cause.

Meaning we are not the cause of global warming.
We do pollute.
That is true.
But we do not make planets warmer as terraforming is still beyond our ability.

 

[Bandit]

How do you figure I said anything like that?

It was a question. I was not figuring anything.

Maybe read the post
Meaning we are not the cause of global warming.
We do pollute.
That is true.
But we do not make planets warmer as terraforming is still beyond our ability

I did read the post. So humans creating pollution & chemicals in the run-off and drains according to you has nothing to do with climate change.

Do you know how ozone is depleted? Is the sun eating it?