Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Schneibster]

I hate to tell you this, but the reason you're confused is because a lot of people have spent a lot of money to ensure you would be if you didn't do a lot of research, probably more than most people are willing to do.

I hate to say it, but if you're not going to do a lot of research for yourself, you're going to have to decide whether you believe the majority of scientists, or a few of them who are being supported by the people with the most to lose if global warming is happening, and a bunch of politicians who are funded by the same folks and are striving to talk as loudly as they can to try to get you to ignore the scientists.

But really, you should do the research for yourself.

 

[CapelDodger]

I hate to tell you this, but the reason you're confused is because a lot of people have spent a lot of money to ensure you would be if you didn't do a lot of research, probably more than most people are willing to do.

Oddly, I find the science of AGW being argued (rather inexpertly) on the Conspiracies Forum, while we end up making small-talk about a very shallow and obvious conspiracy. Not even an intrigue, far too obvious and banal. And failing, and doomed. You can fool all of the people, yadda-yadda, but you can't stop people noticing what's going on around them.

I referred Diamond's recent contribution on the subject to the Conspiracies Forum. Let's never speak of it again.

If anyone has a question about the science and/or evidence of AGW, there's a team here that will answer it cogently and politely. (I hope I'm not being too forward in saying that.)

 

[CapelDodger]

bump

 

[Schneibster]

and a most timely one, considering that the facts that are needed for two other threads are to be found on this one.

 

[CapelDodger]

and a most timely one, considering that the facts that are needed for two other threads are to be found on this one.

This is a pretty good utility thread, Global Warming and all that stuff. Let's not neglect it in future .

 

[jimgerrish]

I don't particularly care about global warming, but if it can be used as a way to get individuals and their governments to stop pumping noxious fumes into the atmosphere that my family and I have to breathe, and to stop pumping poisons into the rivers and streams, and maybe slow down or stop the deforestation of the planet for our parking lots and shopping malls, then I will jump up and down and cheer on the global warming nuts.

However, I am convinced from my own studies that while the earth's climate is constantly changing and now seems to be heading for a warming trend, it was not caused by the destructive activities of humans and certainly cannot be reversed by anything humans can do. We have to learn to live with it. But in the meantime, if the topic gets people to stop fouling the environment we have to live in, I will pretend that Al Gore is not a self-serving idiot and that we all should take his advice (and he should lead the way by taking his own advice and getting off my idiot's list).

 

[CapelDodger]

However, I am convinced from my own studies that while the earth's climate is constantly changing and now seems to be heading for a warming trend, it was not caused by the destructive activities of humans and certainly cannot be reversed by anything humans can do.

I wouldn't describe the burning of fossil fuels as destructive per se, although getting at it often is. The warming that we're already experiencing - not moving towards - is undoubtedly a result. And that will be destructive of our existing global society

We have to learn to live with it. But in the meantime, if the topic gets people to stop fouling the environment we have to live in, I will pretend that Al Gore is not a self-serving idiot and that we all should take his advice (and he should lead the way by taking his own advice and getting off my idiot's list).

There seems to be a marked correlation between disbelief in AGW and disdain of Al Gore. Doubtless a coincidence, of course, since how could ideology influence a purely rational evaluation of the science ?

 

[Harpoon]

CD, You mention disdain for Al Gore.

After the tsunami of December 2004, George H. Bush and Bill Clinton worked together to raise awareness and aid. It worked much better than if only Clinton or Bush were involved -- no complaints of using the issue for political gain.

If Gore had a similar, balancing PR partner, say someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, his message wouldn't come across as political posturing. Schwarzenegger's likely a bad choice, so make a better selection, but you get my point.

I've never doubted climate change, but had no understanding of the mechanism until my recent adventures here. Without that understanding, I presumed GW wasn't AGW and was likely just more political-economic maneuvering. Varwocke's source listing of 10-09-06 will take me a while to work through, and I've saved Schnieber's long explanation for later re-reading. Thanks to both.

I hopped to this thread this afternoon because I wanted to post a message cautioning about the unintended consequences (pardon the cliche) that can happen when science warns about approaching calamities. The remedies can cost millions of lives and need as much analysis as the initial science.

But I've just read all 11 pages of this string and I my eyes are swimming (must be the higher sea level). So I'll just say: Happy 100th Birthday Rachel Carson!

I have discovered a major point of contention with CapelDodger, however.

I prefer Bushmill's. Holiday tomorrow; I think I will.

 

[mhaze]

I hopped to this thread this afternoon because I wanted to post a message cautioning about the unintended consequences (pardon the cliche) that can happen when science warns about approaching calamities. The remedies can cost millions of lives and need as much analysis as the initial science.

Good points.

But this reminds me of a truism about real estate - where about every 15 years a new, exciting principle of strong, vital expansion and profit is discovered, with which one can get rich.

It's called ..... leverage.

Uh...huh.

In a similar fashion, a new terrifying apocalyptic glimpse of the future will be discovered and fear mongered every so often. This is not something new.

Yet it differs from a practical and constructive effort to create a better world.

 

[CapelDodger]

In a similar fashion, a new terrifying apocalyptic glimpse of the future will be discovered and fear mongered every so often. This is not something new.

Casting back for examples, the Cold War and nuclear apocalypse naturally springs to mind. I was brought up with that, and a lot of post-apocalyptic SciFi, which was big in the 50's and 60's. The Cold War went away, of course, so it was just unnecessary worry and tremendous expense.

(I tend to see the War on Terror as being the replacement for that, rather than AGW, but perhaps I compartmentalise too much. Politico-military-industrial complex in one pigeon-hole, the scientific establishment in another. I do try to compensate for that tendency. )

What other examples of scientific "fear-mongering" to gain "leverage" do you recall? There's the asteroid threat, of course, and the careers that some astronomers might want to fund on the back of it.

Yet it differs from a practical and constructive effort to create a better world.

If you spot any of those, do let me know. My cynical side's having far too easy a time of it recently.

 

[CapelDodger]

The latest AGW thread is fast becoming an enclave of climate nutters. Schneibster: your explanation of the greenhouse effect - honed well beyond any real need for sharpness - is too scientific, apparently. Not simple enough. Nothing is simple to the simple-minded, not is anything too complex for the fixed-minded.

a_unique_person is stirring the waters mildly but regularly, as any aquarium owner (yes, we frickin' own these guys) does. Not enough to force them out of their little-pond into the wider world of "all that stuff".

 

[a_unique_person]

CD, You mention disdain for Al Gore.

After the tsunami of December 2004, George H. Bush and Bill Clinton worked together to raise awareness and aid. It worked much better than if only Clinton or Bush were involved -- no complaints of using the issue for political gain.

If Gore had a similar, balancing PR partner, say someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, his message wouldn't come across as political posturing. Schwarzenegger's likely a bad choice, so make a better selection, but you get my point.

I've never doubted climate change, but had no understanding of the mechanism until my recent adventures here. Without that understanding, I presumed GW wasn't AGW and was likely just more political-economic maneuvering. Varwocke's source listing of 10-09-06 will take me a while to work through, and I've saved Schnieber's long explanation for later re-reading. Thanks to both.

I hopped to this thread this afternoon because I wanted to post a message cautioning about the unintended consequences (pardon the cliche) that can happen when science warns about approaching calamities. The remedies can cost millions of lives and need as much analysis as the initial science.

But I've just read all 11 pages of this string and I my eyes are swimming (must be the higher sea level). So I'll just say: Happy 100th Birthday Rachel Carson!

I have discovered a major point of contention with CapelDodger, however.

I prefer Bushmill's. Holiday tomorrow; I think I will.

The problem with the concern for unintended consequences is, we are already playing that game. By increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the unintended consequences are already happening. Our option now is how do we deal with it, pro-actively, or re-actively.

 

[mhaze]

Casting back for examples, the Cold War and nuclear apocalypse naturally springs to mind. I was brought up with that, and a lot of post-apocalyptic SciFi, which was big in the 50's and 60's. The Cold War went away, of course, so it was just unnecessary worry and tremendous expense.

(I tend to see the War on Terror as being the replacement for that, rather than AGW, but perhaps I compartmentalise too much. Politico-military-industrial complex in one pigeon-hole, the scientific establishment in another. I do try to compensate for that tendency. )

What other examples of scientific "fear-mongering" to gain "leverage" do you recall? There's the asteroid threat, of course, and the careers that some astronomers might want to fund on the back of it.


If you spot any of those, do let me know. My cynical side's having far too easy a time of it recently.

Erlich, The Population Bomb
Nuclear War
Nuclear Winter
Global Cooling
SARS
Bird Flu
Anthrax scare after 911
Big Rocks from Space (statistically this is a really big problem)
Al Queda then Al Queda Linked Groups
Iran and their Bomb
N Korea and their Bomb
Global Warming

CP, I'm a bit puzzled at your noting that the cold war just sort of went away....and you follow that seemingly by vouching for the value of cynicism as to the course of future events?

 

[mhaze]

The problem with the concern for unintended consequences is, we are already playing that game. By increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the unintended consequences are already happening. Our option now is how do we deal with it, pro-actively, or re-actively.

There is implicit in your assertion the "WE". Who, exactly are the we? And who defines and dictates who the we are? I am sure that you know that for example, the US has a pretty good carbon footprint per dollar of GNP compared to many nations. Or alternately...is this strictly an individualist carbon footprint moral philosophy?

One could be more precise as to these assertions of righteousness and moral indignation. Otherwise a reader such as I remains in a hopeless quandery as to his moral condition (accepting the premises of the poster). But that might be the intent of a cleverly worded argument.

Many groupings of the "WE" phrase, I would have no part of.

 

[a_unique_person]

Erlich, The Population Bomb
Nuclear War
Nuclear Winter

If you don't think we weren't on the brink at least once, you are ignorant. Nuclear was a real risk, and the associated side effects, whatever they might have been, would have been disastrous.

Global Cooling

An interesting notion that was never seriously studied, but the idea was picked up by the press

SARS
Bird Flu

Serious issues that have been proactively managed. You would prefer they wouldn't have been managed, just to see how bad the results could have been? The last major flu epidemic was just after WWI, and killed more people than WWI did, something like 50 to 100 million. That's what happens when you aren't able to manage a serious epidemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

[/quote]
Anthrax scare after 911
[/quote] A scare, but never a serious risk, but the press does like a scare.

Big Rocks from Space (statistically this is a really big problem)

Yes, it has happened in the past, and it will happen again.

Al Queda then Al Queda Linked Groups

A real problem, but seriously mismanaged by Dubya

Iran and their Bomb

They are still a few years away, but the Cold War should have shown us, as did the recent stand off between India and Pakistan, we don't need more nuclear armed countries in the world. One day, someone will be stupid enough to start a war off

N Korea and their Bomb

Just Kims way of blackmailing the West

Global Warming

A serious issue, if you disregard it, we have already seen what can happen when serious issues are mismanaged.

 

[Harpoon]

There's another lesson to be learned from the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' fable besides the one mama taught: just because there have been false alarms in the past, doesn't mean the next alarm isn't real.

I'm quite worried about the eventual effects of GW hysteria. But the level of hysteria doesn't indicate anything except that humans can get get hysterical. Nothing to do with GW evidence.

 

[mhaze]

If you don't think we weren't on the brink at least once, you are ignorant. Nuclear was a real risk, and the associated side effects, whatever they might have been, would have been disastrous.

An interesting notion that was never seriously studied, but the idea was picked up by the press Serious issues that have been proactively managed. You would prefer they wouldn't have been managed, just to see how bad the results could have been? The last major flu epidemic was just after WWI, and killed more people than WWI did, something like 50 to 100 million. That's what happens when you aren't able to manage a serious epidemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

Anthrax scare after 911
[/quote] A scare, but never a serious risk, but the press does like a scare.
Yes, it has happened in the past, and it will happen again.


A real problem, but seriously mismanaged by Dubya



They are still a few years away, but the Cold War should have shown us, as did the recent stand off between India and Pakistan, we don't need more nuclear armed countries in the world. One day, someone will be stupid enough to start a war off



Just Kims way of blackmailing the West



A serious issue, if you disregard it, we have already seen what can happen when serious issues are mismanaged.[/quote]

And your point is.......what, exactly?

 

[CapelDodger]

CP, I'm a bit puzzled at your noting that the cold war just sort of went away....

Irony, dear boy.

... and you follow that seemingly by vouching for the value of cynicism as to the course of future events?

I have wide streak of cynicism in my character, to put it mildly. The older I get, the wider it grows. Cynicism is directed towards, people, groups of people, their actions, and their motivations. It's not the same as sceptical - which is how you seem to be using it here.

I have no doubt that there will be continued warming for decades; that's already in the pipeline. I very much doubt that there will be any globally-coordinated response that will have more than a marginal effect. That's in the human condition. And I don't doubt that the results will be disastrous for many people.

 

[mhaze]

Irony, dear boy.



I have wide streak of cynicism in my character, to put it mildly. The older I get, the wider it grows. Cynicism is directed towards, people, groups of people, their actions, and their motivations. It's not the same as sceptical - which is how you seem to be using it here.

I have no doubt that there will be continued warming for decades; that's already in the pipeline. I very much doubt that there will be any globally-coordinated response that will have more than a marginal effect. That's in the human condition. And I don't doubt that the results will be disastrous for many people.

Agreed. For very good reasons we've got cynic, skeptical, paranoid, etc. attitudes in the gene pool.

I've often used a simple argument to display this - all the cavemen tribes each had a cave, and there was one paranoid member in a few of the caves. He was mutttering about the bad guys (raptors, gators, you name it) lurking out there behind the trees. And he was almost always wrong, and was the butt of the jokes.

Funniest thing. After a while there were no tribes left....except those that had this type guy around.

 

[CapelDodger]

Erlich, The Population Bomb

Apocalypse delayed is not apocalypse denied .

Nuclear War

Prevented so far, but a real and present danger at times.

Nuclear Winter

A reasonable prediction in the event of a Cold War nuclear exchange. We know the effect single volcanic eruptions can have on climate; a few thousand ICBM's tearing up the turf and sparking fires all over would have a great deal more. It was only a scare in the sense that it might have scared some people off actually starting a nuclear war.

Global Cooling

A popular denialist myth, this one. Check it out. Some poorly-informed and hyped-up newspaper articles do not constitute a real scare.

SARS
Bird Flu

Have they just gone away?

Anthrax scare after 911

Another press puff.

Big Rocks from Space (statistically this is a really big problem)

I'd make a bet that the drink will get me first . (The stats are on my side, and my liver ain't.)

This would become equivalent to AGW if a Big Rock were identified as headed for a collision in twenty years or so - with, say, 90% certainty now rising to 99% in ten years and 100% five years from impact. That would concentrate minds wonderfully. Some would concentrate on what to do to prevent it, and some on how to deny that it will happen. Of that I have no doubt.

Al Queda then Al Queda Linked Groups
Iran and their Bomb
N Korea and their Bomb

These are all problems of our day, not of some apocalyptic future. The ambitions of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan in the 30's were a concern in their day, and for good reason.

Global Warming

This is the one that's really got legs. It's been of increasing concern for decades now, and shows no sign of going away. Where have we "heard that before"? Nowhere, really.

Apocalyptic prospects are generally deployed by politicians, not scientists. AGW has made progress against the political grain, and still has no real momentum in the practical sphere.