|
Cityview magazine Knoxville Tennessee — This piece is poorly structured, but contains a lot of excellent info regarding the Global Warming debate. It attacks the “everyone is in total agreement” argument made by Gore. |
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. “[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate…
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with “[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.” They close the letter by asking that the IPCC “and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.”
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
#160–QB==good post. I was kinda surprised that one of the very few things Bushco did in the energy area was to support corn based ethanol in a variety of ways. I thought and still think this is pretty strong evidence the motive and source of the change was Big Agriculture (Archer Daniels) and pandering to small farmers for their red votes.
I don’t think too many “liberals” were on the ethanol band wagon. But I accept that you know your enemies better than I know my friends.
#74 – Misanthropic Scott “If you don’t like peer review, I strongly suggest turning off your computer. The quantum mechanics don’t work anyway, so any appearance of the computer allowing you to get on the internet must be an illusion.”
Deal. And you stop using AC power…
Bobbo, liberals originally saw the ethanol subsidies as a payoff to big business, and were opposed, but then the companies saw the environmental angle and pushed it hard. Now it’s more of a liberal impulse than a conservative one, but the opposition is very small right now.
#166–Mike==how is it a “liberal impulse” when it is supported and passed by BushCo? If anything, I can see this as Dem/Pub politicians pandering, but liberals hardly ever support tax breaks/supports/welfare for corporations?
Regardless, corn based ethanol if not food based ethanol, if not land based biomass to fuel schemes are seen as long term disasters (Brazil to be an anomaly for only a few short years) and I would hope most liberals would revoke this legislation==but for the reasons above, the republicans and the politicians in general will make this nearly impossible.
Its like nuke energy==bad policy pushed by corporate welfare interests.
#132
Your example of the fish tank is a perfect illustration of why simple analogies do not work when you are discussing climate science. It is extraordinarily difficult to anticipate all possible compensating effects to a rise in CO2 that might counterbalance the effect. Suppose, CO2 does rise and pH falls. Ok. What could also happen is an increase in plant absorption of that CO2 or an increase in the population of species which thrive on CO2 (Some Plankton Thrive With More CO2) which balances out the effect or a host of others possible results that might counter the effect. It is extraordinarily difficult to account for all possible effects when you are dealing with a large biosphere. The fact that we have yet to make an artificial biosphere work for more than a couple of years (and almost killing the inhabitants) is evidence that are not able to anticipate all possible effects to any given change in the system. It arrogant presumption to assume that all effects on your fish tank will work in equal proportion and exactly the same way in oceans.
#129
I would not put too much stock in validation coming from insurance companies. I would bet that the insurance companies are using the climate change as an excuse to increase premiums and/or sell more types of insurance. Insurance companies + scared customers = higher insurance company profits.
# 168 Thomas
You say this
“You cannot assume that a reaction in a test tube will create the same reaction on the biosphere. ” – Thomas #126
Then later you present this info. I quote from the article
“It focused on laboratory tests in which coccolithophores were grown in water made more acidic by infusing it with bubbles of air with elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide.”
That is quite a double standard you have. OH THE IRONY!!!
Perhaps you didn’t bother to read Dr. Chris Langdons response to those tests before you posted the link.
As far as your #168 post and the others where you claim we don’t know enough to draw conclusions………If this is the kind of reasoning and evidence you use to hold your position then you shouldn’t even be debating this topic because you lack the scientific background to discuses it properly. Nothing personal but you don’t seem to understand the principles of science. 🙂 Not to mention you seem to be unaware of the amount of evidence and research done that covers all those “unknown” areas of study. Yes it is complex and yes the answers are not easy but that doesn’t mean we can’t draw very accurate and educated conclusions rather than throwing up our hands and proclaiming “It’s too big and we will never understand it.” or like some claiming it isn’t happening or can’t happen.
#159 – amodedoma,
Doesn’t take a genius to know we don’t know squat about meteorology. Hell they can’t even get tomorrow’s weather report right.
Doesn’t take much to know that meteorology is about as unrelated to climatology as any two fields can be. The only slight connection between the two is that as the climate changes, the weather forecasts will change. Other than that, one is about attempting to predict the weather tomorrow. The other is about calculating all the heat coming in versus the heat being radiated and trying to predict the changes this will cause in climate.
I’m still hopeful that we can make the needed changes before the consequences make greater sacrifices necessary.
I’m not even very hopeful that we will make the needed changes at all.
#160 – QB,
Great post. A couple of minor points about it though.
1) Wind is already working. In fact, it’s the only energy source already cheaper than coal even with all the externalities and subsidies in the fossil fuel industry. Of course, solar will have to play a much bigger part than wind because of the relative abundance.
2) I don’t give a rat’s ass what Greenpeace has to say about it. Nukes are still not the answer. Perhaps they will be when we get fusion working. Until then, the risks are too great, the cost is the highest for any energy source, the disposal of the waste has not been taken care of (not one gram from any country has been properly disposed), the disposal of the depleted uranium isn’t even considered waste, the health of the miners is not taken care of, etc. Too long for one reply. Please read my blog post with plenty of links on the subject.
#161,162,
Excellent points you’ve made. Very intelligent and well spoken and convincing. Were you both captains of your debating teams?
Anyone detect a note of sarcasm? No? Good, ’cause I was going for an entire symphony of sarcasm.
#164 – bobbo,
I don’t think too many “liberals” were on the ethanol band wagon. But I accept that you know your enemies better than I know my friends.
Funny that everyone is talking about this as a liberal issue. It isn’t. Evangelicals are in support of fixing the global warming problem. They believe we’re fucking up god’s creation.
http://tinyurl.com/43ofzc
http://tinyurl.com/y5gugc
This is an environmental issue.
Environmentalists knew long before Bushco Inc supported corn that corn ethanol was a really bad idea. A few support some means of ethanol, some even support sugar ethanol. Personally, I think any crop grown for fuel is a bad idea. We should never put food in competition with fuel.
#167 – bobbo,
Its like nuke energy==bad policy pushed by corporate welfare interests.
Exactly!!
#168 – Thomas,
It’s also extraordinarily difficult to comprehend relativity, quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy, the instant of the big bang. Do you always assume you know more than the scientists in the field? If so, why?
#169 – Thomas,
I would not put too much stock in validation coming from insurance companies. I would bet that the insurance companies are using the climate change as an excuse to increase premiums and/or sell more types of insurance. Insurance companies + scared customers = higher insurance company profits.
First, if you’re going to comment about a post, read the link in it.
Second, learn what reinsurance is. They’re the guys insuring the insurers. Do you think they can scare Lloyds so easily?
Third, since you obviously won’t read the damn link, here’s an excerpt.
The last line can be taken two ways. Weather is worsening regardless of climate change’s reality or not. Or, weather is worsening due to climate change no matter what anyone believes about climate change, it rages on. I’ll grant that the authors probably meant the former, though it is hard to say for sure.
#169–Thomas==I will add to Scott. I don’t think Insurance Companies are any long range predicter of anything. Long range==more than a year.
As Scott posted, they take trend lines and project for one year and charge a rate based on that. There is a limited amount of competition to keep them somewhat in line. It always HIGHLY irritates me when the insurance industry decides a certain area, EG–low lying flood plains on the coast, are very unsafe due to weather and so the charge rates that no one can afford, so the Fed Gov steps in and provides insurance guarantees. So, RICH PEOPLE, can get their beach front summer homes rebuilt every 15 years on the Federal tab==aka==the poor supporting the rich, another example of wealth transfer from the bottom to the top. Many other examples of this.
SO–relatedly, would be to find an entity that really does rate and evaluate “long term” probabilities. No one does it. Who has a legitimate business interest that is significantly affected today, by what will most likely happen 50, 100, 200 years from now?
Would you personally finance a resort right on the oceans edge with a pay back of 30 years covered by a 5 year rolling insurance policy and federal guarantees? I would. Would I do the same with my grandkiddies inheritance with repayment to be completed 100 years from now? Probably, but I wouldn’t be as comfortable.
# 174 pedro
“Even accepting an accolade you deny your merits, what a kid!”
See pedro this is why you should learn to read. I didn’t deny anything. I accepted the accolade and defined why it was true. Arguing with you is like talking to a chimp at the zoo.
“Odd. If anything, you should get it since yours can be found on any dictionary as an example of the word “Senseless””
Really? I only found it in the “pedros idiots guide to the world dictionary.”
“This is why kids need to go to bed when they’re told to. They say the darnest things to try to impress adults.”
Pedro are you aware that your posts tend to be unrelated to anything others have posted and instead come from some deep recess of your delusional mind. Stop smoking pot or what ever it is you are doing before posting.
# 178 – If you look at population growth trends in the threatened areas, you will see what the major factor is regarding increasing losses by the insurance industry. What used to be uninhabited bayous and backwoods is now heavily populated areas. Cheap residential air conditioning played a role also. While I site the U.S., world population growth over the last 40 (most people live near coastal areas.) is a major factor in the losses experienced.
Bobbo, some hardcore liberals hate corporate welfare, but most of the elected ones push it as much as the Republicans. The environmental angle fooled some of them too, making ethanol pretty much untouchable. I say it’s more a liberal impulse now, because there are more anti-spending hawks in the Republican party, but too small to make a difference.
#179 – bobbo,
Actually, I thought from that reinsurance link it sounded like they were looking quite far out.
What actually bothers me a lot with the insurance companies is that when someone is not only living on a flood plain or other obvious high risk area for natural disasters, after the disaster they rebuild in the same damn place.
If I were running the insurance companies, I’d probably say that we need to build housing for an equal number of people elsewhere and give you money to buy a new home from either one of the new homes or from someone else who moved into a new home and has now vacated their old home.
The new homes, since there will be less land available, will likely be high rises. So, some of the original owners may not want them. But some from other areas will. It’ll all work out. Build the new buildings, give the money to buy a home to the people who were washed out, let people move into whichever homes they prefer.
Whatever you do though, don’t build right the fuck on the same damn flood plain. That’s just fucking stupid!!
#183 – MikeN,
Bobbo, some hardcore liberals hate corporate welfare, but most of the elected ones push it as much as the Republicans. The environmental angle fooled some of them too, making ethanol pretty much untouchable. I say it’s more a liberal impulse now, because there are more anti-spending hawks in the Republican party, but too small to make a difference.
As a fairly extreme liberal myself (on the political compass, I am left of and more libertarian than both Ghandi and Mandela), I assure you that liberals hate corporate welfare with a burning seething fiery passion.
You speak of elected liberals, care to name a few? We’re so far to the right in this country that we can’t even see that both Obama and Clinton are quite far right of center. Even Edwards leans right. Kucinich is a bit to left and liberatarian. Most of our pols are in the upper right quadrant of the political compass. So, our Republicans are extreme Republicans and our Democrats are moderate Republicans.
Take a look for yourself. I can’t make this shit up.
http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
So, after viewing this, exactly whom are you calling liberal? Nixon would be liberal by today’s standards. The so called liberals you talk about are yesterday’s conservatives. The conservatives of today are mostly neocon right wing nut jobs.
#183–Mike==we agree on the basic and don’t need to quibble about personal bias. What do you think you gain by dividing the world up into liberal vs republican? The above issue is a good example. The key distinction is elected politicians exhorting money from corporations to fund their millionaire lifestyles and election campaigns. To make sure the corporations have no excuses, the politicians make sure they have the tax dollars from me and you to do so.
Once we have identified the relevant piece of shit, you only smear yourself with it by trying to protect republican shills by claiming the dems/liberals do it more.
Actually kind of a tough argument when the republicans controlled all three branches of government (and the media too) during the times relevant to the issue.
Again==consider dropping the constant forcing of issues into liberal vs conservative talking points. Its unseemly and detracts from the intelligent things you do have to offer.
#185–Scott==I commend you for keeping track of your reference materials and reposting them when relevant.
This entry is a fine example of your expertise. So much so, I broke down and took the test. I scored minus 2, minus 2.
Just where everybody should be–a centrist with a liberal leaning.
#186 – bobbo,
What do you think you gain by dividing the world up into liberal vs republican?
There are two types of people in the world, those who divide the world into two types of people and those who do not.
Seriously though, this is highly simplistic. In reality, there is one type of person in the world. We’re all Us. Any attempt to divide us into Us and Them is guaranteed to increase intergroup tension.
I would strongly suspect that even as I argue vehemently for my point of view on this blog, there is no one with whom I do not share a lot of commonality. In fact, if looked at broadly enough, I’m sure I agree with everyone on this blog more than I disagree.
When we have a debate such as this, it highlights the differences in some things we feel are important. However, the things that are truly important and fundamental are the ones we probably don’t even bother to discuss because we all agree.
Perhaps we should all try to keep that in mind more often, myself included.
Once we have identified the relevant piece of shit, you only smear yourself with it by trying to protect republican shills by claiming the dems/liberals do it more.
Funny. Yes. We do have a very strong tendency whenever we hear something bad about “our side”, whichever side that may be, to find something worse about the other side. Of course, this does nothing to justify the bad action taken by “our side” but somehow does seem to make us feel better about them again.
The psychological term for what this resolves is cognitive dissonance. It’s too bad the human mind is so great at this because it really accomplishes nothing at all, other than to make us feel good about ourselves again.
Again==consider dropping the constant forcing of issues into liberal vs conservative talking points. Its unseemly and detracts from the intelligent things you do have to offer.
Well said!!
#187 – bobbo,
That’s a nice spot. You’re right next to Kucinich, who was my first choice for president, and the added benefit of the possibility of a FLILF was just a bonus.
Personally, I’m way southwest of you …
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31
And, of course, anyone taking the test regardless of where they end up would say that it’s the perfect place to end up, by definition, else they wouldn’t be there.
Anywhere in the southwest quadrant though is usually someone I’d befriend.
Were you shocked to see where the candidates are? All for corporate freedom over personal freedom is the way I see that quadrant. People who prefer personal freedom to corporate freedom tend to end up in Arizona, so to speak (i.e. on the lower left corner of the political map.)
#188–Pedro==one of the greatest gifts we can receive is someone else pointing out our shortcomings. After that, it truly is a choice we make to define ourselves. I am truly a victim in this life on earth because no one tells me shit beyond the completely obvious. I’m down to taking personality inventory tests to find out who I am. ((Only a semi-joke.))
#189–Scott==The worst example of this cognitive dissonance is that turd sucking fucktard Hannity. In one sentence he can say Bush is not responsible for some administrative malfeasance of his own because of something Clinton did or didn’t do 15 years ago. And then he’s smug about it and generally gets a giggle from dipwad Colms as well. Two douchebags if ever there was. My interest in hearing the “opposing view” is drawing to a close? All the right wing commentators are too much like this. Yet it has traction. Its why democracy fails.
# 181 pedro
“Yawwwwnnnn”
“Man, you cannot get a hint even if it hits you.”
I think you are confused. The only thing droped by you is stupid comments and and the IQ of all that listen to you.
“Tell you what, it was fun playing with you, but I have better things to do, like watching the UEFA cup.”
Are you taking your toys and going home now?
“Get some sleep and keep growing.”
I don’t take advice from fools.
#190–Scott==yes I was shocked by where the candidates were which is what prompted me to congratulate you. Nice to see an outrageous seldom heard statement made===and then backuped with facts/data. Very well done.
So in homage, I took the test. I assume your answers are the same as mine and I just answered agreed more often than STRONGLY. That probably because I quibbled more with the definitions of words than you==I will claim that for myself. I am a quibbler and that makes me less effective than strong advocates such as yourself. The middle gets it from both extremes.
#192–J==you are getting tedious.
#193 – bobbo,
I used the rule that if an issue makes my blood boil then I strongly agree or disagree. If not, then not. I probably also agree with some of the more radical positions regarding corporations, which I view as tools and therefore do not have the same rights as humans, as well as some of the freedoms I would grant to humans. Pretty much anything that does not cause a victim is OK with me. And, one cannot victimize oneself.
#195–Scott==I went back to the test to find a question we could discuss, but it won’t let me go past the first page.
I did note that Ron Paul did not make it into the libertarian quadrant. Hmmm? Guess he is a quibbler too?–or like most of those in power, more often thinks STRONGLY that those in power deserve their position?
Would be fun to see all the pols test results just as they exited college?
Here is one question: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I disagreed because in the short term you can benefit from a mutual interest but long term, an enemy is just that, an enemy. If you strongly disagree, why?==with emphasis on what made your blood boil?