Friday, August 28, 2009

Global Warming Debate

I am posting this because my reply was just that good. :)

Someone asked this question: I have a question aimed at the general GW skeptics - why is it that when someone posts something that is idiotic and/or just plain incorrect, do you not post responses correcting their information. Is it because you sympathize with them and they are tools for an agenda?

My reply: I always challenge people who say something I think is wrong or idiotic, but only if I am somewhat informed on the topic. When it comes to GW, I have an opinion based on a myriad of readings I've gone through over the years. My consternation comes whenever alternative opinions are shunned, insulted and generally burned at the stake because they don't follow what the "in crowd" is preaching. That drives me nuts and is bad for science.

Are we having an affect on the Earth? I don't know. I'm certain when the Earth was more volcanically active, it was much worse, but we don't whine about that. The issue is not that the planet is in jeopardy, it's the PEOPLE who are in jeopardy.

This is NOT a "Save The Planet" issue, it's a "Save Our Own Ass" issue. The Earth has withstood heavy bombardment, wild tectonic activity, volcanoes, floods, hot periods, ice ages and more. It's us wimpy, yet wildly egocentric, humans that can't stand a little degree here and a little degree there adjustment.

Let's be honest about the concern before we start to go and pen legislation that reduces personal freedom under the guise of "Saving The Planet". It's quite easy to guilt trip people into thinking they are the problem for something that is tremendously more complex than they can comprehend, yet the world has fallen into this trap of guilt and repentance, at the expense of well established freedoms that have led to a better quality of life for humanity...in general. It's not our fault other countries of the world treat their people like crap and don't take advantage of the technological advances that have been developed to make life better.

So, for the debate to be honest, all sides deserve a fair shake, but for the longest time that has not been the case for GW. Now we are starting to see alternative ideas come to the foreground, which is all many of us GW haters have ever asked for. Let's spend the proper amount of time figuring out what the root causes are, but of course in the meantime do all we can to be as clean as possible.

It is easy to succumb to someone who calls you a planet hater if you disagree with their environmental ideals. I refuse to do that, because I know I LOVE this planet, I live here too, and we should be good stewards, because the Earth is fully capable of wiping us away without a second thought and move on for another 4 billion years, and we will have been a civilization that never existed.

13 comments:

brian said...

I recommend you and any other climate change skeptics read some of the material from the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ . This is a group comprised of hundreds of the world's top climate scientists. Bottom line: the planet is indeed warming at a faster rate than it would naturally due to human activity, and the effects on our planet (resource availability, weather, ecosystems, human survivability) will be severe unless we change our ways as a collective species. That means lifting all countries up to a basic standard of environmental stewardship. I hate to say it, but the US is one of these. We're behind the curve in many regards.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your opinion here, and I agree this whole affair has not been good for science, particularly climate science. I think when the dust settles, the environmental movement in general will be dealt a sever blow.

To Brian:
Understand this: The Skeptics and AGW Believers agree that the earth's climate changes, they only disagree on the cause. AGW Believers blame it on human activity while Skeptics believe that it is caused by something else (the Sun perhaps). Skeptics want conclusive evidence that CO2 controls the earth's climate. They're not asking for proof, just conclusive evidence that C02 is the driver of climate (it's not a lot to ask really). Climate scientists have been trying to show that C02 controls the climate for about 30 years now and have failed to deliver. They have shown unequivocally that the climate changes, but they have never shown that C02 is the driver. And pictures of melting glaciers and weeping polar bears are just more evidence that the climate changes, it is not evidence that C02 is the cause.

For a skeptic to agree to a Cap&Trade based economy, CO2 must be shown to be the driver of climate. The skeptics are still waiting.

Douglas Mallette said...

Anon - Thanks for the very well spoken reasoning and logic argument. You hit the nail on the head.

Brian - I trust the IPCC about as much as I would trust a study conducted by OPEC on the merits or flaws of oil. What do you think they will say?

The IPCC is nothing more than a group of governmentally backed scientists. Yeah, no influence there. Of course they're going to all sing the same song -- who's signing their paychecks? I'm not saying the scientists are crooked, but GIGO is the rule. If you're loading the question before you even start looking for the answer, then of course your results are going to be slanted that way.

Want to see some good data that's not linked to any particular organization, go here:

http://www.climatephysics.com

And how in the world are WE behind the curve on pollution controls when we are the nation with the absolute MOST laws and regulations governing pollution. We're the ones developing the technology to do it! lol.

Also, the argument of, "Well, the U.S. started all the pollution in the first place," is a bunch of crap, because at the time, no one had a clue what any emissions did to anything, environment or people. And if it weren't for our innovative society, we would not have many of the advances we have today, so that argument can go screw. :)

It's the growing nations of China and India that present the most serious threat, because their disregard for the obvious, especially since we're much better educated now, is asinine. They need to adopt proper controls at the beginning if they want to play in the game.

Norman Copeland said...

This is the front line of power radiation emmision analysis as the obvious suggestion is the cities that need as much power as these reactors generate produce the largest power output waste residues.

What's obvious is that our world has decided for this next generation that nuclear reactors will be the primary source of power for our planet, it's the decision of the politicians.

Regardless of the criteria set for power emissions this proliferation is set to continue for the next 25/30 years, it is based upon the fact that there isn't a fact of how much danger is involved with global warming precedents it is based upon industrial momentum.

Douglas is correct to indicate the evolving process for emerging third world economies may be dangerous as they bring 1/3 of the worlds population into the equasion, if as some have suggested it is the fault of more modern western world countries for the demise of our planets natural atmospheric defences against u.v rays, I believe it is safe to say it is no longer the prime issue.

The concerning consideration is the curbing of the trend towards atmospheric deterioration and, I'm not sorry to say that the sanctions must be imposed against these developing nations, which of course, echoes the rest of the worlds policies.

That is the difficulty of this generations politics as the momentum is with these new power players coming [India and China] into modern democratic technological arena's bringing the sheer numbers of 1/3 of the world population with them and the economies they will be creating with a shift towards democratic capitalist conformity.

This particularly reasonable assumption is why I believe George Bush jr did not sign the Kyoto protocol, reasoning that it would be unjust to prevent China's nation joining the modern world for power distribution techniques, but, also, opening the door to the table for future global analysis combined with an inferior American ecomomy though mature demographic central intelligence of the evolving process, so, although, it seems like a 'sideswipe at the rest of the world to shun the protocol, I beleive it one among many other tactical maneouvers to the credit of George Bush's legacy, which we will now see Barack Obama inheriting.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

Bhuvan Chand said...

Official government measurements show that the world’s temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That’s given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Proposals to combat global warming are “crazy” and will “destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family’s annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year,” the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. “High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health,” the ads asserted.

Norman Copeland said...

Bhuvan Chand...

It is also interesting to note that Indian food is England's number 1 choice of food [restuarants and supermarket meals]...

[economic figures posted for 2008].

Marcel F. Williams said...

The polar ice caps are melting. There's now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 2.1 million years. And the fossil fuel industry and an ever growing human population would like to put even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Would a greenhouse world be the end of the world? No. But if we end up completely melting the ice caps, we would have a brand new world!

Countries like: Cambodia, Bangladesh, and a third of Brazil will be completely underwater along with Florida and most of the East Coast and most of Louisiana. California's Joaquin Valley would once again become the San Joaquin Sea. American cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, and Washington DC would be completely underwater. Cities like London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Bangkok, and Beijing would also be completely underwater.

However,we would gain vast new territories free of ice in Antarctica and Greenland, if you think future generations might like to live in areas with long periods of daylight and long periods of night.

David Johnson said...

hi dear,

your posting has been good for me. daily i comes your site and read some useful imformation from yours. i have also space related blogs. i think its very useful for you and your users. i have added you links in our blog.

plz go and check this blog: http://nasa-space-info.blogspot.com/

i request you to add my blog to your blog.once you have added my blog plz mail me this id: forhealthplans.blog@gmail.com

Michael Martin-Smith said...

Before the advent of satellites( recent)Most of the data points came from in or near cities, which are naturally skewed to warmer levels. Not many climate/temperature data from Outer Mongolia or Central Amazonia.

Further, it is doubtful if we know the full story on climate change; the proposed interaction between solar cycles, solar wind, Van Allen Belts , Cosmic ray flux, cloud seeding and rainful/cooling is complicated and cannot be used to blame or tax us- and so cuts little ice- but might, nevertheless, be relevant!

We know that Earth has enjoyed climatic changes before Humanity- let alone industry - ever came along.

WE also have reason to believe that, had it not been for 8,000 years of forest clearances and agriculture, we might even now be entering a New Ice Age. IF we combat GW too zealously, we could well regret it...

Clearly from this time on, we are the stewards of the Earth and, in our own interests, must be good, ie well-informed ones. To denigrate science and technology, and, as some environmental partisans do, (cf One Day BIS Symposioum on Mar 25th 2009, where Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth refused contemptuously an invitation to join us)refuse even to consider the potential of Space technology to help us, is dangerous.

An example- from 2004-7, Brazilian space based
monitoring of Amazonia reduced illegal logging by two thirds. This was not achievable without the ever watchful satellite monitors!

On the question of "Saving the Planet", planets are tough cookies, and now number well into the 300s. Human(e) civilisations, on the other hand , on present knowledge number just one- us!

Totalitarian State control by zealots, in the name of Saving the Planet, endangers civilisation, I submit, more than climate change itself. History proves it.

As a final note, if we are to face collapse of civilisation through climate change or any other natural cause, we need life insurance- ie a self sustainable daughter civilisation OFF this one small planet, to multiply our odds. This is plain common sense

kT said...

There is no debate you fucking retard.

Douglas Mallette said...

kT - You statement shows two things:

1. You didn't read the title request to refrain from cussing and being rude. I think I'll keep your post here though so that everyone knows that you obviously can't read.

2. In addition to part 1, you have brought nothing to the table as far as the discussion goes, which means you're probably 12. Go watch SpongeBob and come back when you have more than 10 brain cells to contribute to the conversation.

Norman Copeland said...

kT, I'm sorry you feel that way, perhaps you could get your head around this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO8JWbG6bVw

alotstuff said...

nice blog.....

http://envrionment.blogspot.com