New Scientific Findings Cast Doubt On Global Warming

Good points TL [img]smile.gif[/img] a little planning up front is almost always a good way to go...and I think that is happening more now than ever, Kyoto is and always has been (in my opinion) more about redistributing the wealth of industriel nations rather than actually being an effective global climate management policy. But then Im just a ignorant layman who only knows the major summaries of the subject and not the deatils.

Originally posted by Thorfinn: MagiK, that is a pretty good summary, I guess, except that for the most part, the other side is not so much "no need to worry" as "let's be reasonably sure of ourselves before we start cutting off appendages." The "crises" the alarmists predict have not come anywhere close to fruition, often because of advances in technology, and I am hard pressed to recall a single crisis that actually came about, despite ignoring the advice of the alarmists. Well near as I can tell, the Rain Forest in Brazil is still there despite predictions that it would be gone by the 1990's There is still plenty of oil despite the worlds supply supposedly drying up by the year 2000 Florida remains above the surface.... We aren't eating Soylent green and Apples don't cost $50 each nor does real meat cost $500 for one smallish steak All in all Future Shock and Soylent Green while popular were far from accurate predictors

[Timber Loftis]

I'm not supporting Kyoto, MagiK. I have before, and the document is just so damned general that it would take years of hammering to make anything contemplated in it real anyway so it really matters naught. But, Kyoto was passed under the UNFCCC, which Bush does support. So, you don't like 1997 Kyoto - fine. Go back and make a *different* agreement under the UNFCCC. Just take some steps. Even baby ones will be something.

Besides, you should know a HUGE part of Kyoto was drafted at US insitence to model the "tradable credits" under our Clean Air Act. An idea supported by Exxon, the administration, and NRDC all at the same time.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn: MagiK, that is a pretty good summary, I guess, except that for the most part, the other side is not so much "no need to worry" as "let's be reasonably sure of ourselves before we start cutting off appendages." The "crises" the alarmists predict have not come anywhere close to fruition, often because of advances in technology, and I am hard pressed to recall a single crisis that actually came about, despite ignoring the advice of the alarmists. Well near as I can tell, the Rain Forest in Brazil is still there despite predictions that it would be gone by the 1990's There is still plenty of oil despite the worlds supply supposedly drying up by the year 2000 Florida remains above the surface.... We aren't eating Soylent green and Apples don't cost $50 each nor does real meat cost $500 for one smallish steak All in all Future Shock and Soylent Green while popular were far from accurate predictors

[/QUOTE]This is very Off Topic, and is a general eco-nut rant. Now, unless you're calling me one, I don't think this is a debate among eco-nuts. Plus, it is akin to me pointing out that cars don't fly yet, we still live in the same brick-and-mortar houses, and we can't teleport so business lied to us too.

[edit] No insult is intended in this post, of course, MagiK. We agree on much morre than we disagree on regarding this issue, I've found. I just read the resonse I posted, and thought maybe it seemed snide. It's not.

[ 04-09-2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thorfinn]

I don't believe I'm putting business above the environment, either. My point is that the state of the science is such that we cannot say that higher CO2 has enough of an effect to outweigh the natural variability of climate. We cannot say with certainty that global warming is a problem, nor that CO2 is the cause, but we do know it will cost significant fractions of the GDP to restrict emissions. CO2 probably influences climate, true, but we don't know by how much, and whether the change we see is due to CO2, or something else. Lacking evidence of a quantifiable threat from global warming, and having quantifiable estimates of the costs of addressing what may not be a problem at all seems to argue for not taking drastic action.

Incidentally, there was a fascinating article a few months back about the well-documented variability in energy emitted by the sun, and referring to proxies, especially oxygen isotopes, the authors formulated a theory that correlated the cycles the sun undergoes to the major climatic shifts over the last few hundred thousand years. Anyway, there has not been enough time to really comment on it, as the scientists have not had enough time to examine it and formulate alternate hypotheses, so I'm not putting a lot of stock in it yet, but it was fascinating, nonetheless. If true, it predicts that we should be in the midst of yet another natural warming trend.

As for the Clean Air Act, it has helped in a number of ways, and done immeasurable harm in others. It has utterly destroyed much in the way of competition, a good reason why large, established companies like Exxon prefer credit trading schemes. They can afford the capital expenditure of massive scrubbers, while upstart competition cannot. The regulations have in effect formed a cartel of currently existing large companies, and prevented the entry of competition. Similarly, a system with expensive credits favors the companies who can afford the credits, which by definition are large. A case in point -- Old Home bakeries petitioned the EPA to classify the ethane emissions arising from the action of yeast in bakeries as pollutants, and mandated large scrubbers. I don't know of a single person living anywhere near a bakery who complains about the smell, but through regulation, the mega-bakeries have nearly eliminated the mom & pop competition.

And you know my feelings about getting permits from the government that allow you to do things with your own stuff that would otherwise be illegal...

[ 04-09-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Azred]

The most distressing problem that prevents proof or disproof of Global Warming is the fact that it is impossible to set up a control experiment to test hypotheses. It also seems like too many people on both sides arrive at conclusions first and then subsequently do research to support their claims; this is the Scientific Method played backwards.

Ice cores do show increases in "greenhouse gases" over the last several centuries, with the most drastic increase in the most recent century. Historical records show increasing temperatures over the last century. Tree rings show a cooling period several hundred years ago. Geological research shows that ice ages come in cycles; as far as I remember we are actually on the downhill side moving towards another ice age, but no one currently alive will be around to see it. Conclusions: 1) we cannot prove whether Global Warming is happening and 2) if it is happening, we cannot prove that humans are causing it.

That being said, people should put the question of Global Warming on the back burner in favor of reducing emissions that could indeed be harmful. We know that sulfate and nitrate emissions are harmful to the environment, as an example, and thus those emissions are regulated. Were I to be on the board of directors of some corporation, I would be moving for voluntary controls because the cost of cleaning up at the production leval is less that the cost of fines and clean-up after some accident.

Many of these scientists and environmentalists should choose their battles more wisely.

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Originally posted by MagiK: [qb] This is very Off Topic, and is a general eco-nut rant. Now, unless you're calling me one, I don't think this is a debate among eco-nuts. Plus, it is akin to me pointing out that cars don't fly yet, we still live in the same brick-and-mortar houses, and we can't teleport so business lied to us too. [edit] No insult is intended in this post, of course, MagiK. We agree on much morre than we disagree on regarding this issue, I've found. I just read the resonse I posted, and thought maybe it seemed snide. It's not.

'twas but a commentary on the accuracy of the eco-people who persist in trying to use scare tactics in order to force their agenda.....this doesnt describe you at all [img]smile.gif[/img] And was in direct reply to Thorfin [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Azred: Ice cores do show increases in "greenhouse gases" over the last several centuries, with the most drastic increase in the most recent century. Historical records show increasing temperatures over the last century. Tree rings show a cooling period several hundred years ago. Geological research shows that ice ages come in cycles; as far as I remember we are actually on the downhill side moving towards another ice age, but no one currently alive will be around to see it. Conclusions: 1) we cannot prove whether Global Warming is happening and 2) if it is happening, we cannot prove that humans are causing it. You are disagreeing with recent findings to the contrary. It is no secret that temps were higher in the middle ages, and that in the time frame of around the 13th century or so we underwent a "little ice age" and that temps in the last couple of century are just now recovering from that major dip in temeratures. That being said, people should put the question of Global Warming on the back burner in favor of reducing emissions that could indeed be harmful. We know that sulfate and nitrate emissions are harmful to the environment, as an example, and thus those emissions are regulated. Were I to be on the board of directors of some corporation, I would be moving for voluntary controls because the cost of cleaning up at the production leval is less that the cost of fines and clean-up after some accident. I think we agree here. Lets make our processes more efficient but not kill our economy to do it all overnight. Many of these scientists and environmentalists should choose their battles more wisely.

[Azred]

Originally posted by MagiK: You are disagreeing with recent findings to the contrary.

This is true. Unfortunately, I am neither an envionmental scientist nor a meteoroligist by training. I simply disagree with those who say that Global Warming is an immediate threat because the validity of the research I have examined seems more accurate and complete. It appears as if I shall have to research recent findings, both pro and con, for myself. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

The technology to make production cleaner currently exists. It is simply a shame that too many business pursue high bottom lines for the current and next quarter at the expense of the long-term ramifications.