Weevil's Global Warming Rant

[Weevil]

I'm going to divide this up into two parts:

1) Christ almighty, even if you want to ingore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that believes we're warming up the planet through our abusing the air(I'll admit there isn't unanimity much in the way there's still a few Round Earth doubters) can't we all agree that we need to cut back on our emissions just to make the air cleaner? Christ, you come to downtown toronto and inhale deeply a few times and then drive your SUV home and we'll see.

2) Okay, so we have one group of people convinced that through our reliance on fossil fuels we're warming up the world, causing unstable weather conditions drought and the melting of them polar ice caps(this would be a bunch of scientists, left wing nutjobs, leprechauns) , on the other side people who think the warming of the earth is a natural phenomenon and so are the weather patterns( Some scientists, Oil Companies, Vampires, Republicans, Things that go bump in the night)

Now, one side is either looking at the wrong facts, fudging facts or outright lying. Now, here's why I think it's the side I'm not on. Those of us who believe the warming of the earth is being accelerated by human emissions have nothing, absolutely nothing to gain by misrepresenting the truth. Nothing. A big time scientist would move on to studying other things, scientists are usually in demand. For people like myself, well, I wish all of the environmental things that make me so mad would go away. I wish Global Warming wasn't an issue. If you convinced me that the warming of the earth was natural, I'd have a load off my mind and move on to cleaning up the air for the more obvious reason discussed above or, I don't know, saving bottlenosed dolphins from tuna boats or something. People who print up catchy slogans on T-shirts like "Stop global warming" would start printing "Go Leafs Go!" shirts and so on

But the other side has something very, very substantial to gain from people believing that Global Warming is a naturally occuring phenomenon. If the United States was firmly convinced it was a man made event then Oil companies would lose money, car companies would lose money, The National Review would have to print a bunch of retractions.

Anyways, I'm bringing this up because I met Bob Hunter the other night(I practically asked him to sign my tie) and I mentioned this and he said that the first time he heard a report disputing the claim of global warming this was taken as a given that it was the expected reaction from people who were financially hurt by a scientific study, within a few months they would fund a study that said the opposite.

So, I think when you look at it objectively the people who say Global Warming is our fault probably went into the discussion wondering whether or not there is global warming. the people who say it's natural have one hell of a vested interest in it being natural.

And I think that ruins believing a word they say.

Wee-

Aw fuck it you know I wrote it

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Hi Weevil, good subject!

Just a little argument from the "Chicken Little" opponents.

Global Warming In Brief



The Global Warming Debate -- Updated November, 2000

In 1992 the United States and nations from around the world met at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio and agreed to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Rio Treaty was not legally binding and, because reducing emissions would likely cause great economic damage, many nations will not meet the goal.

Representatives from around the world met again in December of 1997 at a conference in Kyoto to sign a revised agreement. The Clinton Administration negotiators agreed to legally binding, internationally enforceable limits on the emission of greenhouse gases as a key tenet of the treaty.

The president's position is based on the idea that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activity. Further, it presupposes that the potential damage caused by global warming would greatly outweigh the damage caused to the economy by severely restricting energy use. Finally, his position assumes that the agreement will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions world wide and will prevent global warming. However, as this pamphlet shows, each of these premises is still very much in doubt.

In May 1997 Consumer Alert formed a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition on climate change policy, the "Cooler Heads" Coalition, to address the consumer impact of climate change policies.



Science

Is global warming occurring?

ØAccording to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase."

ØSatellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.

ØProjections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.



Are humans causing the climate to change?

Ø98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

ØBy most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)

ØA Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.



If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?

ØThe idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Also, sea-level rises over the centuries relate more to warmer and thus expanding oceans, not to melting ice caps.

ØContrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.

ØLarger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.

It seems to be a very complicated subject! I just hope both sides and all of us can find real, provable science before leaping to wasteful conclusion. I remember seeing an article in "Popular Mechanics" back in the late fifties that tried to argue that the Earth was "tumbling on it's axis" and massive rocket engines could be placed at the pools and fired to correct the impending "end of the Earth!"

RhumbRunner

 

[Problem Child]

Weevil, leave motive out of it and stick to science. I could just as easily say that you support the theory of global warming because the anti-global warming crowd is populated with republicans and vampires and oil companies. That's enough motive for you, right?

BTW, I don't disagree with you, but I tend to look at it more from the point of view that we should get off the fossil fuels for political and economic reasons, and to reduce or eliminate air pollution. I'm not really afraid the icecaps are going to melt next year.

Who is Bob Hunter?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Who is Bob Hunter?

Proly' some guy getting rich, traveling around giving symposiums on GW!

Rhumb

 

[SINthysist]

What they have to gain, the question you pose is, a simpler, gentler time, when man was at one with nature...

It's, to use UncleBill's phrase, collectivism run amock.

They hate technology. Throw your clogs! Heave, Ho! Capitalism, it must go, hey hey, ho, ho, let's heave, let's ho, let's leave the oil below...






PS. The Sun and Mars warmed up too.

All things considered...

Blame El Sol...

 

[paphian]

No matter how you want to slice and dice the whole global warming debate, the following remains true:

Over geologic time-scales, the earth has been significantly warmer, on average, for very long periods of time, than it is now. Life didn't end.

So where's the beef?

Broad searching and reading on the issue shows that there isn't an "overwhelming majority" of scientists that think we're responsible for global warming, or even that agree that global warming due to human activity (much less at all) is a fact.

What is true is that there is a vocal group of scientists, environmental lobbies and the like who have championed the Global Warming Is Happening And It's Serious campaign. Those organizations, especially, are not altruistic. When one reads for meaning and intent the broader goals of organizations like the Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, one finds that they have a much broader "social agenda" than environmentalism. It's not necessary to read the statements of their detractors to determine this. Read the charters and goals of the organizations themselves.

A year ago, the Sacramento (California) Bee did a great piece on the "big business" aspects of the environmental lobbies. It's still on-line, here:

Environment, Inc.

If you have an interest in understanding some of the motivations of the various lobbies, I strongly suggest you read it.