Global Warming Scam

[Ceritus]

Exxon/Mobil and the other special interests funding junk science can indeed be fought. The rest of the civilized world (including California, but with the notable exception so far of the USA) is fighting against greenhouse pollution with efforts like carbon markets and the Kyoto accords. Rationality can win.

But what if the cause for the global warming has nothing to do with Exxon/Mobil or pollution? What if it is a natural cycle that happens every couple of hundred thousand years? What if all the efforts made are in vein and we waste a ton of useful resources to try and prevent something that cannot be prevented? To me it is a political scam to win votes. To you it may be the doomsday that you fear and are trying to prevent.

I hate to sound a bit dismal but. Honestly what is the point worrying about the distant future? Really? You know the universe will most likely experience heat death right? All life will eventually cease to exist and worrying about the future of your great, great, great, grandchildren is kind of like mental masturbation is it not?

If it doesn't effect me or my immediate family now or in our lifetimes I simply don't care about it. Perhaps that is a very selfish view of things but to be honest I don't care about your life as much as you may care about it and the same goes vice versa. Why would I want to pay more money for a product that is produced in a clean manner when it can be cheaply produced using methods that create a lot of pollution?

I doubt we have anything to do with the global warming trend. I doubt we can do much about it. I do think if I lived in an area effected by it in an adverse way I would move or find a way to move before things got bad.

 

[a_unique_person]

But what if the cause for the global warming has nothing to do with Exxon/Mobil or pollution? What if it is a natural cycle that happens every couple of hundred thousand years? What if all the efforts made are in vein and we waste a ton of useful resources to try and prevent something that cannot be prevented? To me it is a political scam to win votes. To you it may be the doomsday that you fear and are trying to prevent.

Arugment from ignorance again.

 

[Ceritus]

The "if" isn't all that big. What makes you any less ignorant than I?

 

[a_unique_person]

"What if" - vs - Science.

 

[Cuddles]

But what if the cause for the global warming has nothing to do with Exxon/Mobil or pollution? What if it is a natural cycle that happens every couple of hundred thousand years? What if all the efforts made are in vein and we waste a ton of useful resources to try and prevent something that cannot be prevented? To me it is a political scam to win votes. To you it may be the doomsday that you fear and are trying to prevent.

Yes, what if? Wouldn't it be terrible if we had clean, renewable energy that wasn't going to run out or be controlled by another country. If we didn't have a large hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, radioactive contamination, smog, water shortages, etc., etc.. I guess since global warming isn't real we might as well carry on polluting everywhere and see how much more we can trash the Earth before we run out of coal and end up back in the stone age.

 

[Ceritus]

Yes, what if? Wouldn't it be terrible if we had clean, renewable energy that wasn't going to run out or be controlled by another country. If we didn't have a large hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, radioactive contamination, smog, water shortages, etc., etc.. I guess since global warming isn't real we might as well carry on polluting everywhere and see how much more we can trash the Earth before we run out of coal and end up back in the stone age.

Sigh OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING.

Sure it would be great. But how much do I really want to invest in this?

From my understanding nuclear energy is pretty much great. Lets drive around nuclear powered cars!

 

[Cuddles]

From my understanding nuclear energy is pretty much great. Lets drive around nuclear powered cars!

Yes, but quite obviously your understanding is rather limited.

 

[Crispy Duck]

Yes, what if? Wouldn't it be terrible if we had clean, renewable energy that wasn't going to run out or be controlled by another country. If we didn't have a large hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, radioactive contamination, smog, water shortages, etc., etc.. I guess since global warming isn't real we might as well carry on polluting everywhere and see how much more we can trash the Earth before we run out of coal and end up back in the stone age.

This is precisely why I'm sceptical about the truth of global warming. I'm not saying it's all made up, but there is clearly a very very strong incentive for all western governments to emphasise the possible downsides of GW, and the measures we can take to prevent it. One can easily imagine that any theory appearing to support the above environmental and political issues might well be accepted with less-than-100% scrutiny.

I'm always amused when climate sceptics are accused of being oil industry lackeys, as if there were no similar financial and career-enhancement incentives for the pro-anthropogenic-GW lobby.

Similarly, saying "all working climate scientists agree with the AGW theory" carries as much weight as saying "all working homeopathists agree with like-treats-like theory".

Anyway, I'm a bit grumpy today, don't listen to me

 

[varwoche]

One can easily imagine that any theory appearing to support the above environmental and political issues might well be accepted with less-than-100% scrutiny.

There's lots of things that can be imagined, as this thread abundantly demonstrates.

On the other hand there's such thing as scientific evidence. Care to offer up some?

I'm always amused when climate sceptics are accused of being oil industry lackeys

You do realize(?) this thread's humble begininings are based on a climate "skeptic" (Malloy/junkscience) who in fact is a paid oil industry shill and an abject joke.

I have a mini-challenge for you: Can you name some GW/AGW skeptics who have been accused of being oil industry lackeys who in fact have not been renumerated by the oil industry? (With citations.)

Similarly, saying "all working climate scientists agree with the AGW theory" carries as much weight as saying "all working homeopathists agree with like-treats-like theory".

Are you suggesting that climate scientists are not credible and are akin to homeopathists?

 

[fsol]

It all depends on what we mean by "take care of itself," doesn't it? I was simply trying to point out how very obvious it is that our decisions will impact our survival and quality of life as a species. The Gaia theory doesn't enter this discussion in any relevant way. The "Earth Mother" won't save us if we kill ourselves.

I was agreeing with you. I was just tryng to point out that regardless of whether or not the "Earth Mother" can look after itself, that doesn't necessarily include us.

 

[Crispy Duck]

There's lots of things that can be imagined, as this thread abundantly demonstrates.

On the other hand there's such thing as scientific evidence. Care to offer up some?

Evidence for what?

You do realize(?) this thread's humble begininings are based on a climate "skeptic" (Malloy/junkscience) who in fact is a paid oil industry shill and an abject joke.

I have a mini-challenge for you: Can you name some GW/AGW skeptics who have been accused of being oil industry lackeys who in fact have not been renumerated by the oil industry? (With citations.)

John Brignell at www.numberwatch.co.uk regularly jokes about wishing he *was* being paid by the oil industry. Christopher Monckton's recent Telegraph articles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml) raised controversy, but his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley) doesn't mention any links to the oil industry. In any case, any such links wouldn't invalidate such sceptics' points of view. One must assess the evidence presented.

Are you suggesting that climate scientists are not credible and are akin to homeopathists?

No, I'm suggesting that many climate scientists work for organisations whose raison d'etre is to research and/or raise public awareness of AGW. One can hardly be surprised if they espouse that view. Again, one must assess the evidence on its merits, and always ask cui bono? If you believe that we live in a world where anti-AGW proponents might sometimes distort the issues to their own advantage, you must also believe that we live in a world where pro-AGW proponents might do the same thing, surely?

For example, a point raised earlier in this thread was that one only has to observe the shrinking of Kilimanjaro's snow cap to see that AGW is real. I'm sure that most sceptics, assessing solely this claim, on its own merits, can see that the reasoning is completely specious. AGW may very well be real, but the shrinking of a single mountain's snow cap doesn't prove anything - I've seen it suggested that local deforestation may well be affecting precipitation patterns, for example. Certainly, any local environmental changes along those lines would be expected to swamp AGW's effects on a local scale, one way or the other.

I'm not at all saying the AGW isn't real; I simply voiced my disquiet. People have amazing abilities to believe what they wish to be true - hence homeopathy. One should not assume that climate scientists are immune from that particular problem, particularly given the West's increasing angst over humanity's obvious and ongoing defilement of the environment.

Various government departments have been trying for decades to make us reduce our energy use, for all the perfectly good reasons stated above - pollution, reliance on imports from unstable states, etc etc. I'm simply suggesting that, when presented with the opportunity to write 'Use low-power light bulbs or the polar bear gets it' on a twenty-foot tall billboard, many such government departments would be strongly disinclined to check all the literature first.

I'm still grumpy.

 

[DeviousB]

I was agreeing with you. I was just tryng to point out that regardless of whether or not the "Earth Mother" can look after itself, that doesn't necessarily include us.

Certainly the man who first proposed the Gaia hypothesis doesn't think so (link).

 

[a_unique_person]

Monckton has already been discussed in this thread. He is an earnest amateur who understands very little of what he is talking about.

 

[DeviousB]

Monckton has already been discussed in this thread. He is an earnest amateur who understands very little of what he is talking about.

He has been peer reviewed though.

Here is a review of his articles by one of his peers (in the occupational rather than noble sense).

 

[Crispy Duck]

I didn't think Monbiot's rebuttal was particularly convincing. He doesn't present much specific evidence rebutting Monckton's claims, besides a brief mention of Boltzmann's law. He dismisses the medieval warming of Greenland as a mere local phenomenon, expecting us to accept that any current warming of Greenland is a symptom of a global catastrophe.

My main reason for posting in this thread was to respond to Cuddles post (#285) above, which expressed what I think is a very widespread feeling amongst 'environmentalists'. Cuddles doesn't really care whether AGW is a fact or not, becuase the things that we would have to do to combat AGW are all the things that Cuddles believes we should be doing anyway. I would rather know the truth, and then buy some low-power light bulbs regardless, than simply accept what I'm told. When I read articles like Monckton's, I'm left wondering.

 

[Ceritus]

Yes, but quite obviously your understanding is rather limited.

If you really think this than the location under your forum avatar must be true.

 

[DeviousB]

Anyone can be a AGW sceptic, oil-funded or not. The question should really be are there any (potentially) credible sceptics who aren't?

Well, yes there are; but they are very few.

I dislike the 'scientific consensus' label because it is misused by both sides. The 'consensus' is not amongst the scientists, it is amongst the science. The overwhelming amount of climate research is supportive of AGW, and proper criticism of AGW really needs both to expose the mistake in the science and explain the known data.

The scientific consensus comes up so often because it is one of the strengths of science. All the data the researchers have is on display, the methods they used are there for all to see. Like good little schoolboys, they've included all their workings out. Every advantage is to the debunkers and there should be reams of papers pointing out every elementary error. There aren't.

 

[DeviousB]

If you really think this than the location under your forum avatar must be true.

Well apparently, you didn't understand that nuclear technology does not scale very easily. While it is entirely possible to build a safe and efficient nuclear powerstation, this does not immediately mean that the same technology on a smaller scale could power a car.

For a start, fission based NT requires a near critical mass of fissile material to be present. This is a limitation of the physics and cannot be scaled down to fit into a car. Also, much of the bulk of a nuclear power station is concerned with control, safety, heat exchange and generation. As the core cannot be down-sized below a particular limit, none of the ancillary structures can be either (without entirely new technologies being involved).

Of course, 'nuclear power' really means electricity. It would be quite possible to run an electric car on a charge obtained from entirely nuclear sources. In effect producing a nuclear powered car. This is not without its own problems, however most of these are more to do with the technology of electric vehicles and are not a reflection on nuclear technology.

 

[a_unique_person]

I didn't think Monbiot's rebuttal was particularly convincing. He doesn't present much specific evidence rebutting Monckton's claims, besides a brief mention of Boltzmann's law. He dismisses the medieval warming of Greenland as a mere local phenomenon, expecting us to accept that any current warming of Greenland is a symptom of a global catastrophe.

There are several points Monbiot makes. The Hansen lie is often repeated, and completely untrue. It has unfortunately achieved the status of 'fact' for many AGW deniers, but the truth of it is quite different.

As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible".
As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies. "In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels." Michaels, it says, meets periodically with industry representatives to discuss their activities in countering stories about climate change.

 

[delphi_ote]

I was agreeing with you. I was just tryng to point out that regardless of whether or not the "Earth Mother" can look after itself, that doesn't necessarily include us.

Sorry if I seemed too deliberate. I was just following through on the point for casebro. He doesn't seem to be one for subtlety.