Global Warming - split from Royal Society thread

[goofyGAguy]

Hopefully anyone with an interest in scientific matters will be able to find some gems.

Lately, I've been a lot more interested in what's coming out of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia.

[beGi]

Lately, I've been a lot more interested in what's coming out of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia.

You mean something like this:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do ... ll-us.html

Very interesting...time will tell, I guess...

[GomJabbar]

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic.

Why am I not surprised?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do ... ll-us.html

[goofyGAguy]

Why am I not surprised?

Come on GomJabbar. Can you put aside your Leftist bias for once and look at an issue objectively? The people of the Western nations of the world have been asked to totally alter their economies, throw countless trillions of dollars down a rathole ( curiously enriching people like Al " I invented the Internet" Gore), and go back to a 19th Century lifestyle, and for what? If the events of the last week haven't proven to you that most of the people involved in climate research are political hacks and not objective scientists, then frankly you're beyond help. I don't think it's too much to ask that we get this right before committing ourselves to Draconian measures to stop so-called " climate change ". The science is NOT settled.

[dsvochak]

Are we back to this discussion: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... it=pirates ?

This issue isn’t a left/right dichotomy: I agree that the science may not be settled.

While its true available data indicates global warming is, to some extent, “manmade”, the available data covers a very limited period of time (a little over 500 years for North America, some of which is anecdotal). Is any climate change over that limited period of time “manmade” or a natural event or a combination? I’m not sure anyone can say with certainty.

(All of which has nothing to do with whether limiting pollution is a good thing or not)

[goofyGAguy]

I don't think anyone would argue that reducing pollution by as much as is practicable is a bad thing. The question is how to do it without totally crippling our economy.

[beGi]

Pollution does not affect just climate, and CO2 is just one of the byproducts, so...

And therefore your whole we-can-continue-to-poison-everything-but-nevermind-i'll-die-rich attitude is flawed...

.

[goofyGAguy]

You assume too much...

[beGi]

OK, I'll rephrase: pollution affects ecosystem and natural environment...

Or you need evidence for that also?

I'm not claiming that pollution exclusively affects climate, but in one way or another new global anti-pollution policy (for the nature's sake) is needed...

[mattbiernat]

i am pro-global warming. in a full sense of that word. global warming has happened before mankind invented industrialization and it will happen again whether we limit the amount of pollution or not. instead of spending all that money on a nonsense idea of trying to "stop global warming," spend half as much every year on a research on what to do once global warming changes the face of this planet. all this nonsense about global warming is just like all that nonsense about trying save the rain forest while not carrying about the [censored] algae that makes 75% of your oxygen. global warming is nothing but a liberal propaganda to get the support of the common joe, just like WMD is a common propaganda for a conservative to get a support of the mob.

[qviri]

instead of spending all that money on a nonsense idea of trying to "stop global warming," spend half as much every year on a research on what to do once global warming changes the face of this planet.

I don't see why anyone would care about what Bangladesh's 150 million poor people are going to do once water rises on them

Forget the children, why won't anyone think of The Economy?

Truck on

[goofyGAguy]

Nice try qviri. Howzabout we work with facts instead of emotion?

[qviri]

Nice try qviri. Howzabout we work with facts instead of emotion?

Sure, how's this for a start?



Discuss.

[mattbiernat]

I don't see why anyone would care about what Bangladesh's 150 million poor people are going to do once water rises on them

Forget the children, why won't anyone think of The Economy?

Truck on

well it is actually the people who are trying to "stop" global warming are the ones who don't care about the 150 million poor people in Bangladesh. if we weren't wasting money to try to stop the inevitable we could actually help Bangladesh prepare for whatever is coming in 50 years or so.

[mattbiernat]

it is not that bad. have you ever been to Poland? but yes we should try to limit the amount of pollution that affects our health, that should be the only concern in mind and not the global warming.

[qviri]

well it is actually the people who are trying to "stop" global warming are the ones who don't care about the 150 million poor people in Bangladesh. if we weren't wasting money to try to stop the inevitable we could actually help Bangladesh prepare for whatever is coming in 50 years or so.

You could, but in practice you'd probably spend it on military contractors anyway.

it is not that bad. have you ever been to Poland? but yes we should try to limit the amount of pollution that affects our health, that should be the only concern in mind and not the global warming.

I've lived over half my life in Poland. How long have you been, when and where? Silesia's pretty bad, but I don't think they're up to LA levels yet.

Following your other logic, wouldn't be it better to save the money you spend fighting pollution, and just help those that come down with the associated diseases?

[mattbiernat]

I've lived over half my life in Poland. How long have you been, when and where? Silesia's pretty bad, but I don't think they're up to LA levels yet.

just about half my life too. yes i lived around Sielsia, which is not that bad but Lodz is by far the worst. and after flying from L.A. to Warsaw (two years ago), the first thing i did when I landed in Poland was coughing. L.A. has anti-pollution control that many cities in Poland don't. Oh yeah I forgot to mention that the rivers in Poland are actually quite colorful...

Following your other logic, wouldn't be it better to save the money you spend fighting pollution, and just help those that come down with the associated diseases?

i did say that we should definitely fight pollution that causes diseases.
but for the sake of the philosophical argument, yes if there is a disease that will definitely occur in 100% of the subjects on this planet and assuming that the disease is not deadly, it makes no sense to spend all of your resources to delay it from happening. it makes more sense to adapt people to what will inevitably happen.

[ajkula66]

mattbiernat wrote:

it makes no sense to spend all of your resources to delay it from happening. it makes more sense to adapt people to what will inevitably happen.

You may very well be onto something here...being a skeptic that I am, I've been smelling a ton of BS going around the whole "global warming" thing...

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gore and his "inconvenient truth" buddies are correct-which I don't believe, but anyway-and look one step further on the practical basis. A huge percent of pollution comes from India and China. Who's going to tell them to stop developing their economies, when their only other choice is starvation? Not to mention the fact that a large proportion of Western world has outsourced millions of jobs over there...and that China is currently # 1 banker for the needs of U.S....

Good luck reigning them in...

On a completely different note, does anyone remember AIDS-related prognosis from 20 years or so ago? Had the prophets of doom been correct, the entire continent of Africa would've had the population of Portugal right now, but it doesn't. Yes, millions have died and it most certainly is horrible, but it was nowhere near as bad as initially predicted...

My $0.02 only...

[goofyGAguy]

I think this sums it up pretty well:


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

[qviri]

just about half my life too. yes i lived around Sielsia, which is not that bad but Lodz is by far the worst. and after flying from L.A. to Warsaw (two years ago), the first thing i did when I landed in Poland was coughing. L.A. has anti-pollution control that many cities in Poland don't. Oh yeah I forgot to mention that the rivers in Poland are actually quite colorful...

This is inconsistent with my own experience, then again I did live in the rich snobby north, nor do I love L.A.

but for the sake of the philosophical argument, yes if there is a disease that will definitely occur in 100% of the subjects on this planet and assuming that the disease is not deadly, it makes no sense to spend all of your resources to delay it from happening. it makes more sense to adapt people to what will inevitably happen.

And if the disease is not deadly, merely debilitating? If we could slow it down so that it infects less people until we can develop a vaccine?

Frustratingly, the choice presented by some people, "keep polluting or cripple the economy and go back to the 19th century" is a false dichotomy.

There is actually a reason why I posted the picture of Los Angeles, other than the obvious being the token example of North American air pollution. (How about that discussion of facts, eh, goofyGAguy? Crickets, with a side of tumbleweeds.) Since the 1970s, they've actually cut down their air pollution pretty drastically. I don't see their economy being in the ground any more than any other large city in the U.S.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gore and his "inconvenient truth" buddies are correct-which I don't believe, but anyway-and look one step further on the practical basis. A huge percent of pollution comes from India and China. Who's going to tell them to stop developing their economies, when their only other choice is starvation? Not to mention the fact that a large proportion of Western world has outsourced millions of jobs over there...and that China is currently # 1 banker for the needs of U.S....

This sort of mentality is unfortunately responsible for many of the stupefyingly large problems the world is faced with now. This isn't limited to the U.S., Canada is no better.

It is true, you can't really control what India and China will do. (As an aside, if there is such a thing as "deserving" to pollute, those two have much more right to pollute than the U.S. or Canada simply on the basis of population alone. Our basis for pollution is essentially "we did it first.")

But you can control what you do.

And this will change things. Not as much as it would if the other guy joined you, but it will change nevertheless.

You can't make stupid people not shoot each other dead for stupid reasons. But you can not do it yourself.
You can't make others not water their lawns to keep them idealistic JK-picture green during a drought. But you can not do it yourself.
You can't, unfortunately, make others make considered, well-educated decisions rather than re-iterating the talking heads. But you can do it yourself.
You can't make others not drive massive 2 ton trucks to buy groceries. But you can not do it yourself.
You can't make others not put themselves above everything else. But you can be a little more considerate of others.

On a personal level, "he did it too" stops being an acceptable excuse sometime around kindergarten. Why is it acceptable again when adults do it?

It is the logic of those afraid to do the right thing. The logic of pointing fingers at someone else. "What do you want from me? Look at that guy."

But hey... Freedom (TM).

That'll be about it on the topic from me. Back to your regularly-scheduled, idealism-free, robbed-by-reality content.

[ajkula66]

qviri wrote:

But you can control what you do.

Nice try.

That's all I'm asking for, actually.

But it's getting more and more difficult, bordering on impossible. Because Gore and his mental lookalikes want to control it for me.

Now that's something I have a huge problem with.

The same goes for many other things that are being sold to us as science, and/or being done for our own well-being...

Certain vaccines can come anywhere near my kids only after my untimely burial, let's leave it as that...but I digress...

Let's just not forget that mass hysteria is the best fertilizer for the grounds on which totalitarianism of any kind is to be built...

I've seen it with my very own eyes, more than once...

[qviri]

George,

in my book, feel free to do what you want*, as a person, as a family, as a country. Just make your decisions wisely, make them your own, and don't point fingers at someone else as a justification. That's all I was getting at.


* Within limits of decency and the law.

[goofyGAguy]

I bring excellent news. The exposure of those frauds and charlatans in East Anglia is already proving beneficial: Australia's Parliament has voted down their own version of Crap & Tax....


http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202 ... _australia

Probably too much to hope for that our own Politburo in D.C. will come to their senses.

[mattbiernat]

but for the sake of the philosophical argument, yes if there is a disease that will definitely occur in 100% of the subjects on this planet and assuming that the disease is not deadly, it makes no sense to spend all of your resources to delay it from happening. it makes more sense to adapt people to what will inevitably happen.

i underlined in above paragraph - will inevitably happen in 100% of subjects

so why did you write the following....

until we can develop a vaccine?

in all my posts my point was that global warming will happen and whatever we do it will eventually happen. and perhaps i can agree to an extant with qviri that we should do something to slow it down but too many people in the US are thinking that global warming can be stopped and it is used too often as a political agenda. and too many people are forgetting that global warming is due to sun cycles and it was occurring for millions of years before humans even existed on this planet.

[killer]

Whether you think Global Warming is nonsense, could have some truth, or believe it is happening makes not a scrap of difference to the future. Only very concerted action can alter the future ... or make no difference.

If there is no truth then, if nothing else, reducing your energy consumption will dramatically reduce your costs. It will not save the planet because you don't believe the threat. But you will be richer (or less poor).

If there might be some truth the same applies.

If you believe it is happening then it will also save the polar bears ... and the residents of anywhere at, or just above, sea level. Oh, and it will also save you money.

To improve things you could install a water wheel to generate electricity. It doesn't have to be just you that pays out a lot of money for a turbine ... your local community could pool their resources. An example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/midwales/hi ... 370075.stm

OK, that might be tricky if you live in an arid country but put up a wind turbine instead.

There is nothing left-wing or communist about reducing your energy bills. It is pure economic sense. I replaced an oil-burning boiler last year and it is over 98% efficient. My fuel bills have gone down by 50% in one year ... and my carbon footprint too.

Next on the list is scrapping my 20mpg Jeep for a diesel that does 70mpg.

This all saves money. Potentially it helps save the residents of NY and London ... but stuff them because they'll all want to live in rural areas soon and I can't stand the thoughts of all their nonsense coming with them.

That's about it.

[Bookworm]

I would like to clarify something.

People who do not believe global warming is man made are *not* a bunch of uncaring jerks who want to poison the world for a few dollars.

We talk about the economic damage these laws to end global warming by taxing people out of business not because we don't care about the environment, but because that is the only affect it will have. The scientific evidence does not support the idea that global warming is man made. Banning emissions will not stop it.

Consider the medieval warm period. Where were all the polluting factories in the dark ages? Who drove cars a thousand years before they were invented?

Back then there were farms in Finland. When the world cooled off, the glaciers destroyed a lot of farms. The plague has also been connected with global cooling. So naturally many of us are not convinced that global warming is even a bad thing - if it's even happening.

Is it? The average annual temperature of the world hasn't increased since 1998.

By the way, aren't some of you the same people who, in the 1970's, insisted that air pollution was causing an ice age, and the *government* had to do something?

It sounds to me like global warming/cooling hysteria is being used as an excuse for more government, while history shows we are better off with less. (For specific examples, ask a Native American.)

[beGi]

Consider the medieval warm period. Where were all the polluting factories in the dark ages? Who drove cars a thousand years before they were invented?

Volcanoes eruption and uncontrolled fires where pollution factors back then (not saying they are enough to affect the climate... )

It sounds to me like global warming/cooling hysteria is being used as an excuse for more government, while history shows we are better off with less. (For specific examples, ask a Native American.)

OK, :searches: , ... :wonders-what-had-happen-to-them: ...

[Bookworm]

Volcanoes continue to erupt all over the world and still produce more air pollution than cars and industry.

If you are not familiar with what the U.S. government did to the Native Americans in the 1800's, your ignorance of history is even more amazing than that of people who think the Indians were totally innocent.

I that's not enough to convince you that too much government is bad, ask an older Russian immigrant why he risked his life climbing over the Berlin wall. Or go to Florida and ask some Cuban immigrants why they came to America in a row boat, risking their lives.

[killer]

If anyone has doubts about the rise in temperatures around the world look at NASA's data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

[goofyGAguy]

Why is James Hansen refusing to release the real data?