Global Warming Debate

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Ah, if only Al Gore would do the eco-friendly thing: stay at home and keep his mouth shut. Oh, and btw, the "info" about his lifestyle has been shown to be an outright smear by right-wingers.

Gaffer, Al is from around here...I know some very particular particulars. Has Al Gore done nothing at all to change his ways? No, he has. Usually only after people pointed out his hypocrisy...but still. He has signed up for something called Green Powerswitch. Fine, but you know what? This is a project, it's in development. As for the company that owns it; it powers Al's house and everyone else's the same darn way.

Al also buys his "carbon offsets" from a company he once co-chaired. Hey, it's legal, but it does look funny...can Al stop global warming by giving money to a company that eventually gives back to him?

The main greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4 and nitrous oxide, N2O. Nitrogen and oxygen, the main constituents of the atmosphere, are not greenhouse gases.

Most of the man-made greenhouse gases are CO2, which has been observed to correlate with increases in global mean temperature.

Ok, but just remember that correlation does not always imply a connection.

Water vapour isn't affected by human activity but, worryingly, an increase in temperature leads to an increase in water vapour, leading to further increases in temperature.

That doesn't sound like an example of man-made GW....hmm.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It has a lot to do with it. Al Gore is the one who has been peddling his movie here and overseas like it was the plague. His movie is considered authorative. His hypocrisy doesn't say that global warming is wrong, but it does say at least that he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Besides, it's just wrong to expect the everyman to cut down on his carbon footprint, when Al can easily cut his by giving up a few of his homes. Not to mention his Jet.

Hey, I don't really care if he has a huge house that consumes more energy than Godzilla in a mega-mansion; it's that he calls for everyone else to cut down.

Well, he definitely missed an opportunity to give the right example then. But to tie all of Gore's actions with the validity of global warming is IMO dangerous. Just because the messenger's faulty, doesn't mean the message is. It just irks me that people use Al Gore's to try and punch holes in the global warming theory. It doesn't work that way, what ever faults the theory has, they do not depend on Gore.

Aside from that, I do believe energy comsumption in the USA could do with a little tuning down. In other western countries too by the way. And there are other important environmental reasons to do so besides climate change.

Unconscious reasoning?

*shrugs* It is a possibility, whether it be far-fetched or not. The only thing we can say for sure is that we don't have enough data to be sure about anything else about other planetary climate systems.

Let's talk about the models which predict all dire doom: I have heard that these kind of models always exaggerate. If we were going through a particular cooling spell, wouldn't those models predict that we were going to freeze?

The thing about worst-case scenarios is that they are just that: worst case scenarios.

In 50 years time we might not be under 50 cm of water (in the case of the Belgian coast) but it is still a valid possibility, and the question is whether we wish the take that risk without taking precautions.

That said, not all models used to document climate change are worst case scenarios, but it is those that tend to stick in people's mind as they're the most spectacular. But really, the usuable models must be many.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Ah, if only Al Gore would do the eco-friendly thing: stay at home and keep his mouth shut. Oh, and btw, the "info" about his lifestyle has been shown to be an outright smear by right-wingers.

True. It was a political attack if anything. But one that Gore IMO should have been able to see coming. I do think he missed an opportunity here, there are many systems available to reduce energy use or use renewable energy sources, especially when you've got a bit of cash to spend on it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Al also buys his "carbon offsets" from a company he once co-chaired. Hey, it's legal, but it does look funny...can Al stop global warming by giving money to a company that eventually gives back to him?

I don't quite see the funny side of it but emission rights trade isn't the all-solving glorious solution for global warming many hold it to be. (I did a paper on them a year or two ago.) In theory the system works, and manages to blend economy and ecology nicely. In practice, there are some weak points. One of them is that if you don't deminish the number of rights over the years, you will not get any less polution. On the whole emission trade could be a usuable tool, but it should not be the only one.

That doesn't sound like an example of man-made GW....hmm.

Hm, if i'm not mistaken water vapour can in some ways be man-made. Take nuclear power plants, those iconic white towers emit large quantities of water vapour. And if I recall correctly, a lot of industrial facilities that work with cooling instalations often expel the surplus heat as water vapour.

[The Gaffer]

If there's rank hypocrisy at work here, it's coming from the right.

Now they're having a go at him for buying stuff from a company he helped run.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney shovels billions of tax dollars into Halliburton's coffers whilst still on the payroll, but they seem to be OK with that.

Earniel, do not fall into their trap. Because you care about global warming, you will critique Gore's lifestyle and probably come up with lots of shortcomings. But because the Right don't care about anything except winning the argument so that they can carry on polluting for short term profit, they will use this tactic to shoot the messenger. We are simply playing into their hands.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ok, but just remember that correlation does not always imply a connection.

So you accept that there IS a correlation?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ironically it was recently found that George Bush's Crawford home is very eco-friendly and energy conserving.
http://www.off-grid.net/index.php?p=680

I heard about that years ago - a really good water-usage system, IIRC.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Earniel, do not fall into their trap. Because you care about global warming, you will critique Gore's lifestyle and probably come up with lots of shortcomings. But because the Right don't care about anything except winning the argument so that they can carry on polluting for short term profit, they will use this tactic to shoot the messenger. We are simply playing into their hands.

Maybe. *sighs* I've never been a fan of politics and sometimes I really despise the fact that they're bloody mixed in everything. If you want to learn more about a complex problem, you should be able to look at all the sides, both good and bad, not just what you can use to smack the opposition around the ears with.

(And she's off on a rant, ladies and gentlemen...)

This shouldn't be about winning, this should be about understanding things better. Gah, I really hate how climate change is turned into a political issue. Ditch the politics and stick to the science, dammit.

I really, really hate politics, I can live with diplomacy but just. Not. Politics.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If there's rank hypocrisy at work here, it's coming from the right.

Now they're having a go at him for buying stuff from a company he helped run.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney shovels billions of tax dollars into Halliburton's coffers whilst still on the payroll, but they seem to be OK with that.

Gaffer, you just go right past the point EVERY time...It's pretty simple. Bob tells Joe he shouldn't smoke and that smoking is bad for you. Let's just say that nobody except Bob cares that anyone smokes, or whatever they smoke. But Bob smokes too.

Do you then point fingers at the people who point out the HYPOCRISY, because they are accusing the messenger?

Once again I AM NOT AGAINST Al Gore having a big home, and I really wouldn't care how much energy his three homes consumed if he wasn't such a...
Look, he's from Tennessee, he's bound to be a nice guy personally; but he has been "green" for nigh on 30 years. He wrote the preface to that book in the 70's or 80's (I wasn't alive then), but he sure seems to have been living the same way those oil company CEOs do...
If the messenger is a crook, can you blame people for questioning the message?

Earniel, do not fall into their trap. Because you care about global warming, you will critique Gore's lifestyle and probably come up with lots of shortcomings. But because the Right don't care about anything except winning the argument so that they can carry on polluting for short term profit, they will use this tactic to shoot the messenger. We are simply playing into their hands.

Hey, if the messenger doesn't act like he believes it, much less Hollywood-one of the biggest energy burning industry-then why should regular people give up things that for them are harder to acquire than they are for Al?

I don't think I've mixed Al and Global Warming beyond reason; I take my potshots at him, but I have not ever suggested here that the actual issue of co2s in the atmosphere and the whole theory are connected with Al's existence beyond the fact that he is the most famous proponent, and a hypocritical one.

It's a proven fact that Al Gore is real, and that he is a hypocrite. There's just no way around that reality.

So you accept that there IS a correlation?

Yeah...but not always a consistent one. For instance, when big factories were blooming all over this country, a correlation could be made with the warm weather that apperantly happened in the 1930s [here in the US]. But a couple odd decades later, with industry still going and getting bigger, we cool.
Someone could have been drinking bad grape juice when Mount Helens erupted years ago. Several people could have. I'm not saying that was the cause or anything...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This shouldn't be about winning, this should be about understanding things better. Gah, I really hate how climate change is turned into a political issue. Ditch the politics and stick to the science, dammit.

I apologize for making Al Gore bigger than he is. I would also like to hear the scientific aspect more.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Maybe. *sighs* I've never been a fan of politics and sometimes I really despise the fact that they're bloody mixed in everything. If you want to learn more about a complex problem, you should be able to look at all the sides, both good and bad, not just what you can use to smack the opposition around the ears with.

(And she's off on a rant, ladies and gentlemen...)

This shouldn't be about winning, this should be about understanding things better. Gah, I really hate how climate change is turned into a political issue. Ditch the politics and stick to the science, dammit.

I really, really hate politics, I can live with diplomacy but just. Not. Politics.

Ahh but you've finally got it! This issue was invented by politicians, that U.N. report that has been referenced repeatedly WAS NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY BLOODY BEAURACRATS WITH AN AGENDA. Sorry for yelling but I can't believe this thread has lasted this long. REAL scientists (actual Climatologists not Honorary ones) were recently polled (Barna or Gallup) and only 13% thought that global warming was a real threat, that man could affect either way.

[The Gaffer]

Source for that please.

WAS NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY BLOODY BEAURACRATS WITH AN AGENDA

That is a lie, though I am sure you are just repeating what you've seen elsewhere and sincerely believe it. But it's VERY IMPORTANT that you realise it is a lie. The IPCC comprises 2,500 climate experts from all countries. Even the US and Chinese scientists agreed with its findings.

And what possible "agenda" could they have? It's like the Right can only understand one thing: self-interest, lining your own pockets. Therefore these people must be just trying to keep their research grants? (Never mind that there would be more money to be gained by taking some of the ample funding from oil industry to become a climate change denier.) It's what psychologists call "projection".

Even a majority of Americans think it is time to act: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...&pnt=79&lb=bte

Hector, Bob smokes, but smoking is still bad for you.

I'll tell you how we know. It is CORRELATED with heart disease, lung cancer etc. We can't do an experiment to prove it, because it would be unethical to make people smoke. Similarly, we can't do an experiment with climate change, because, well, I'm sure you can guess.

So, we have lots of different fancy scientific techniques to adjust for other factors, and time and again, these point to a strong causal link between CO2 and temperature. > 90% chance, according to the IPCC.

Let me put that in perspective for you: that is far stronger than the evidence which shows that passive smoking is bad for you.

Earniel: you are right. Unfortunately, THEY think it is about winning, whereas we think it is about getting the science right and critiquing both sides of the argument. Result? They win. We have to move to a situation where we recognise that people who stand in the way of doing something about climate change, for whatever reason, are actively harming our environment. I hope the above exchange helps to illuminate this.

We can hate politics, but we can't escape from it.

[Earniel]

Rohirrim, do not make me hit you...

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Source for that please.


That is a lie, though I am sure you are just repeating what you've seen elsewhere and sincerely believe it. But it's VERY IMPORTANT that you realise it is a lie. The IPCC comprises 2,500 climate experts from all countries. Even the US and Chinese scientists agreed with its findings.

And what possible "agenda" could they have? It's like the Right can only understand one thing: self-interest, lining your own pockets. Therefore these people must be just trying to keep their research grants? (Never mind that there would be more money to be gained by taking some of the ample funding from oil industry to become a climate change denier.) It's what psychologists call "projection".

Even a majority of Americans think it is time to act: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...&pnt=79&lb=bte


Earniel: you are right. Unfortunately, THEY think it is about winning, whereas we think it is about getting the science right and critiquing both sides of the argument. Result? They win. We have to move to a situation where we recognise that people who stand in the way of doing something about climate change, for whatever reason, are actively harming our environment. I hope the above exchange helps to illuminate this.

We can hate politics, but we can't escape from it.

That's really easy to say "oh its a lie ooh ooh" Lame my extremely cool british friend.

You're referencing "average" americans the poll I'm refferring to was polling people that went to school and studied climatology, unlike algore. While the earth warms and cools, no one can give a definite answer whether its manmade, not even the hallowed U.N. report says that, it uses vague terms like "possible".

Given that cows produce more methane than our cars I would hazard a guess that everything has been rigged by the beef industry, and hmm...the'yre probably paying their scientists to make up crap hu?. This is getting ridiculous. My apologies to attempt to make a point.

Have a good one y'all

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Rohirrim, do not make me hit you...

The pacifist left is suddenly turning to violence? Wow I just found the left's sacred cow of global warming...no pun intended

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

That's really easy to say "oh its a lie ooh ooh" Lame my extremely cool british friend.

1) lame or not, it's still a lie The IPCC is an independent (i.e. not funded by political or econommic interest groups) scientific body with a transparent, rigorous method for synthesizing all the scientific evidence.

You'll note that there has been no attempt to rubbish their methods; the deniers are restricted to slander ("bureaucrats") and simply re-asserting the same old tripe (it's normal, it's not happening, hockey stick graph, etc etc) that has been considered, and rejected, by the IPCC review of the scientific evidence.

(Can you find a source for that poll?)

2) Cars don't produce methane, so that's not surprising.

But you made your point: there's conceivably SOMEONE who could benefit from taking climate change seriously and therefore it's POSSIBLE that the whole thing could be cooked up.

(Of course, what you see when you look at what's going on is lots of money from the oil industry and right-wing thinktanks going to climate change deniers.)

Which is all the more reason why debate needs to focus on methods and not motives.

3) It's true that no-one can give a definitive answer on this, by its very nature. You then spoil it by going on to criticise the IPCC for giving a "vague" report which ..er ..doesn't give a definitive answer. How can they win?

In fact, the exact terms they used in the most recent report were "very likely", to describe whether current climate change is being caused by human activity. They went on to define this as "greater than 90% probability".

Hence IMO the need to stop arguing the toss and get on with doing something about it! Your grandchildren won't thank you...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

The pacifist left is suddenly turning to violence? Wow I just found the left's sacred cow of global warming...no pun intended

Look, I just complained about people making global warming a political topic and you immediately start accusing people of conspiracies and political agendas. I can't be the only one who sees the irony of this.

But please, stop trying to pin erroneous political etiquettes on me.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Gah, I really hate how climate change is turned into a political issue. Ditch the politics and stick to the science, dammit.

Sadly, sticking only to science won't prevent further global warming. Here's what I think (and I'll oversimplify a bit to emphasise my point) - we need the political debate on climate change. The politicians are the ones who make the laws, not the scientists. A big problem is that politicians either don't understand the science behind climate change or they don't care. However what politicians do understand is money. Money, finances, economics.

So to make climate change a really hot issue for the politicians, climate change has to be explained to them in terms of money. That's why the Stern Review is so great - it reflects on the costs of climate change and concluds that if the world leaders act now and invest a couple of percent of their nations' BNP to reduce greenhouse gas emissions etc., they'll avoid losing a huge portion of BNP in the future due to the effects global warming.

In my mind, turning climate change into a political issue and more importantly an economical issue might be the only way to save this puny little planet.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Look, I just complained about people making global warming a political topic and you immediately start accusing people of conspiracies and political agendas. I can't be the only one who sees the irony of this.

But please, stop trying to pin erroneous political etiquettes on me.

Well actually Gaffer's the one with the conspiracies and thinly veiled ad hominems, but we all need to back up at look things through a differents lens; debate would be more constructive if we do so and I'm refferring to myself as much as anyone.

[The Gaffer]

RTR, sorry if you've interpreted my posts as personal attacks; they weren't intended as such.

However, I stand by my assertion that there is a concerted campaign from the Right to discredit the evidence on global warming by whatever means possible.

There is extensive evidence to support this view, e.g.:

Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."

Source: CBS News, 30 Jan 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2413400.shtml

Robert Watson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, has been ousted from his job as chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This followed the withdrawal of support by the US government, apparently at the behest of the oil company ExxonMobil, which had lobbied against him.

Source: New Scientist, 19 Apr 2002, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2191

This is in stark contrast to the assertion frequently made by global warming deniers that all these scientists are just cooking up a storm so they can further their own careers, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

I agree with Jonathan's comments about the Stern review.

There is a lot happening on this side of the pond, or at least politicians are starting to make serious noises about it. All three main parties in the UK are vying for green credentials. The government is talking about introducing binding carbon emission targets, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm?ls (see also numerous recent stories on the right hand side of that page).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There is a lot happening on this side of the pond, or at least politicians are starting to make serious noises about it. All three main parties in the UK are vying for green credentials. The government is talking about introducing binding carbon emission targets, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm?ls (see also numerous recent stories on the right hand side of that page).

When I was there I was astonished that the cars still ran on leaded gas, years after it was gone here. Also that things like alternatives to disposable diapers were basically unavailable. The party was still seriously in full swing.

Of course, they were supporting Maggie Thatcher, too. If the politicians have some green noises, they're definitely making progress.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The politicians are the ones who make the laws, not the scientists. A big problem is that politicians either don't understand the science behind climate change or they don't care. However what politicians do understand is money. Money, finances, economics.

Very true, and with this I have no problem.

[brownjenkins]

The bigger problem is that, short of enforced birth control, all we are doing is putting off the inevitable, not really solving anything.