Climate Change

[GordMay]

A single contrary view, does not a consensus break, even when consensus by such a scientific authority as Prof. Prof. Lindzen.
He raises interesting questions on the efficacy of the concensus opinion, which the IPCC believe (for the most part) have been satisfactorily answered.

As Albert Einstein said: "Few people are capable of expressing, with equanimity, opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

Though fairly likely wrong, Lindzen is one capable of such.

[Alan Wheeler]

Seeing as this topic is growing very rapidly, I want to just mark my ground once again. Although I seemingly sound like I am on the, "it's hogwash" side of the camp, I am not. It would be plain stupidity to suggest there is not a change in our climate. I HATE (such a strong word, but I have a strong opinion on this) the enormose quantities of waste we are creating. Vehicle tires is one of the biggest concerns I have for our environment. Anyway, I am side tracking. The following are the real concerns I have. The reason I have the opinion I have is for the following. Companies and Politicians use the Scientific Data out there and use it to support their own purposes. Hey a great argument we would all understand is the Anchor debate. Craig say's his is the best and can use data to support his view. I read last night a statment that Fortress have been shown as No.1 in 20 independant tests. Both are good anchors, both can prove it in test reports. Yet many of those tests used both anchors. So who is really No1???
I do have concerns for our world.
I am concerned that "someone" is unrealisticaly inflating and Profiting from oil. The argument is that we only have 20(??) years of oil reserve left and then the world is out. But what is not told, is that there are reserves in some parts of the world believed to be bigger than the Arab countries put together. Would I like to see an alternative to burning hydrocarbons?? yes!!! It's the false story I dislike.
I am concerned that we are being offered alternate energy vehicles without being told the full story. Like dual energy cars. The electric side is a real problem. Firstly a battery that has a very limited life. The cost of replacement is going to be horrendouse and will be similar to the cost of the vehicle after it depretiates. So I can only imagine people are goign to want to buy a new vehicle when it reaches that point. The car will be worth nothing to resell. Then we have a dangerouse to our environment battery to get rid of. Add to that the fact that charging the battery only shifts the "polluter" from the car to the power station. Infact, for oil fired stations, it would be worse. Producing electricity, sending it across the country and getting it to the car, converting it to the battery, converting it to the drive, all creates losses of energy. So the actuall cost of burn't fossile fuel is more than if it was gasoline poured directly into your tank. Tests here ion NZ have showed that the overall economy of these cars is no better than any average petrol powered car. Not what we are told though and we are being "sold" the idea that we are better concerned citizens if we get rid of the "old" car technology and buy into this great world saver.
These are my concerns. We are not told the FULL and compleate story.

[GordMay]

Alan:
I can appreciate your concerns.

There is a significant difference between a consensus recognition of a problem, and determining (then agreeing upon) efficacious solutions.

So far, the debate has (to my eye) revolved around the question of “is there a problem”; with only very peripheral debate on what the solution(s) might be.

If we (as the vast majority of experts have) could agree that a climate problem exists or looms, then we could move on towards discussing rational solutions.

Of course, should our consensus become: there is no problem – then no solution is required.

First things first. Is there a present, or future problem*?

* Some, like Prof. Lindzen, have opined that climate change is not proven, and (anyway) would not neccesarily be problematic, but, perhaps, even beneficial.

[Benny]

Camaraderie, 44 Creuising cat, Viking sailor et al:

To determine whether we as a species should act on global warming has largely been decided due to the RECENT consecutive record breaking 15 years. This has been a departure from normal cycles as has been the century and a half prior to this period to a lessor degree with the period from 1970 to 1992 recorded as a warming trend leading into the 15 year period. The report points this out but I guess I will have to do so as well.

If we did not have this 15 year period of much higher than normal temperature increases, there would not be as much concern about global warming. The majority of scientists have correlated this temperature increase to a concurrent rise in greenhouse gases from which they have concluded that global warming is occuring at a faster rate than thought in the 90's and man's activity is the main reason why we have a sudden cumulative effect causing the current problem which will expand into a larger problem even with starting to reduce those gases now. It is going to take some time to correct the cycle. If we do not reduce the gases, it will be much worse or possibly irreversable.

So we come to how all of you wish to view the evidence. If you stop at 1995, then there will be a warming trend over the prior century of close to 1 degree celcius - not huge but still significant. This is what you have been doing to substantiate your position against the validity of man's responsibility in this issue. What I have been pointing out in post after post is that the recent rise in temperatures and greenhouse gases along with recent geological events - polar ice melts etc.,- has verified both the problem and man's involvment. This alarming trend is the reason most all of the world - except you few - have recognized the immediate need to ACT not argue symantics.

So what category do you fall into:

The Contrarian - no matter how much they prove it - they are wrong

The Fatalist - do nothing because you can't change fate and it will happen anyway.

The Pessimist - No matter what you do it won't work.

The Stratagist - It's OK to keep the status quo and let someone else do the action and paying for the problem.

The Fundamaetalist - The earth always took care of itself and will this time too though there may be alot of problems

The Pragmatist - Good if you are using all the up to date data

The Realist - agrees there is a problem and is receptive to methods to deal with it.

No matter what evidence is posted here, if you are dead against this issue, and the need for action on it, repetitive arguments will not change your view. Therefor, I am not inclined to continue posting more and more evidence to the non believers. I hope you or yours are not negatively affected by future climate conditions. I however am going to do what I can to further the cause to reduce global warming and pollution in general.

[Pura Vida]

Randy,

You forgot one... The Opportunist... some folks still have inventory left deep in the Austin Chalk.

pv

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* Some, like Prof. Lindzen, have opined that climate change is not proven, and (anyway) would not neccesarily be problematic, but, perhaps, even beneficial.

Gord - Prof. Lindzen does concur that climate change is proven and that humans have contributed to it.

Originally Posted by Prof. Lindzen

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

Some other quotes from Prof. Lindzen that are worth considering:

Originally Posted by Prof. Lindzen

There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare.

Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now.

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate.

Benny, you left out one category. Let me add it for you.

The Optimist - Believes global warming is happening and will be beneficial to the earth.

I am so looking forward to sailing from Denmark to the US west coast via the northwest passage in a couple of years.

[Capct]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Here's a wonderful and most understandable article in this weeks Newsweek by Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...not exactly known for scientific dummies!!
Opinion: Global Warming Fears Overblown - Leadership and the Environment - MSNBC.com

Anyone still want to claim there is a consensus among reputable scientists?!

I would agree...but apparently there are more than a few gullible lefty's out there.
Here is the real truth

Tennessee Center for Policy Research

[44'cruisingcat]

Cameraderie, Viking Sailor, it appears (according to Benny) that we 3 are the only people on Earth who are not absolutely convinced that global warming (and presumably Martian warming too) is happening, is our fault, and is going to be disastrous, and WE THREE are the only ones not acting accordingly.

Well Benny, for your information, at my fully insulated, non airconditioned home I have solar hot water, CCF lightbulbs in most fittings, a waste water recycling plant which irrigates our garden, and I WALK to work. How about you?

Just because I find that many of the reports about global warming are very selective in the data they use to argue their case, and the data they fail to mention because it contradicts them, does not mean I refuse to do anything toimprove the environment.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Capct

I would agree...but apparently there are more than a few gullible lefty's out there.
Here is the real truth

Tennessee Center for Policy Research

That's just plain crap! Al Gore has the right to spend his money any way he feels like that is legal, and support any cause he feels like.

[Pura Vida]

That does a good job of bashing Gore but none of the guys at the Tennessee Center For Policy Researcy are climate scientists.

[Ex-Calif]

"I am concerned that we are being offered alternate energy vehicles without being told the full story. Like dual energy cars. The electric side is a real problem. Firstly a battery that has a very limited life. The cost of replacement is going to be horrendouse and will be similar to the cost of the vehicle after it depretiates. "


The Human Spiritualist = When the resource is gone we will find an alternative.

I (hope) I am not a dummy either. I realize there are a finite amount of resources on the planet and that burning fuels is bad and plastics are bad and all that. I also believe in making as small a footprint as "practicable" - note not = as small a footprint as possible. Humans in our evolution must move forward.

But when one resource is gone another will appear. My company spends billions on R&D. We make huge desalination plants. Will desalinated water cost more? Yes. Will there be enough water? Yes.

Last year I saw a video clip where they made a balsa airplane with a couple of copper anodes. Threw 40,000 volts into it and it was propelled by the release of ions. This is a Star Trek machine! Now all we need are passengers that can tolerate 40,000 volts and we have a commercial application!

Seriously - Fossil fuel alternates already exist. The best thing that could happen is we run out. Humans will mold their environment and I have great faith in our ability to create solutions.

We can argue this till the cows come home but the reality is that we will continue to burn fossil fuels until they are gone. Even the environmentalists burn fossil fuels. There is no acceptable alternative.

[Capct]

here is a link to a BBC documentary everyone should watch

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film - Google Video

especially the gullible ones....ie Benny

[Benny]

I have tried not to polarize this issue but have always asked for intelligent consideration and the evidence we have available to support the position being presented. However, I have a limit to continuously being called a leftist, liberal. fear monger etc. In my last post, I explained why with recent temperature increases, the world in general is acknowledging the need to do something about it. Your replies did not address any of that and instead centred on my reference to a few of you not acknowledging the global warmring issue and my catagorizing the respondants.

This is my last post on this thread as it appears to be useless to intelligently discuss the issue if there is little or no acknowledgement or valid argument of input but only a desire to discredit or label the particpants and the posted evidence. For those of you who did offer evidentary positions both pro and con, thank you for your input - I have learned much from these exchanges. For those of you who are practising green measures in your lives, I applaude your efforts - even you Crusing Cat - and even if you are labelled a leftist etc., you are in the majority so the person doing the labelling is really the one who is a leftist.

[Alan Wheeler]

If we (as the vast majority of experts have) could agree that a climate problem exists or looms, then we could move on towards discussing rational solutions.

Good point, but for me (my personal view) is that we should not be making the global warming issue the argument. The main arguments are, are we sick of breathing polluted air. Are we sick of seeing the ocean filled with oil. And the list goes on and on and on. My close ot home pet peave is the litter thrown out of car windows along our highway. Usually McD's and KFC wrappers and containers and glass bottles etc. It's from people that just don't care about the environment or other people. These are the issues that need addressing. When individuals change their personal attitudes, the rest of the world will change. The global issue will clean it'self up if individuals clean their own backyards up first.

[Capct]

Originally Posted by Benny

I have tried not to polarize this issue but have always asked for intelligent consideration and the evidence we have available to support the position being presented. However, I have a limit to continuously being called a leftist, liberal. fear monger etc. In my last post, I explained why with recent temperature increases, the world in general is acknowledging the need to do something about it. Your replies did not address any of that and instead centred on my reference to a few of you not acknowledging the global warmring issue and my catagorizing the respondants.

This is my last post on this thread as it appears to be useless to intelligently discuss the issue if there is little or no acknowledgement or valid argument of input but only a desire to discredit or label the particpants and the posted evidence. For those of you who did offer evidentary positions both pro and con, thank you for your input - I have learned much from these exchanges. For those of you who are practising green measures in your lives, I applaude your efforts - even you Crusing Cat - and even if you are labelled a leftist etc., you are in the majority so the person doing the labelling is really the one who is a leftist.

All sorts of evidence has been presented.Differing viewpoints and opinions from many people...including a documentary by the BBC.The issue here is you are unable to digest information that doesnt seem to follow your political dogma....a shame really.
Dont let the facts get in the way of a good argument benny.

everyone else ....check it out

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film - Google Video