Game Over for the Climate

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Ender

I'm really not interested in rehashing the competing scientific claims. You are new to this forum but I'm not, I've engaged in those debates for years, and for the time being I'm not going to re-engage them. Nor are they relevant to the issue I did want to discuss and about which my comments on this thread were directed.

Here is one good reason for doubting the claims the AGW pushers make: they lie. Why on earth should anyone believe people about whom the best that can be said is that they sometimes tell the truth? You don't even dispute this point but just dismiss it as an unremarkable fact of life. I find it a good bit more significant than that.

Ender

I can understand your noninterest in rehashing the competing scientific claims. I am not eager to do that either. It is technical, boring and a lot of work. But I think many skip that part and just go with what they want to believe and quite often it is for ideological reasons. I will trust you have done the homework and for some reason fall in the minority opinion.

As far as lies and misinformation, do you also believe the entire IPCC report is a lie?

See also:
http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/g...l_machine.html

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

I will trust you have done the homework and for some reason fall in the minority opinion.

Thank you. That's a refreshing (and regrettably rare) attitude.

As far as lies and misinformation, do you also believe the entire IPCC report is a lie?

Not at all. There is clearly evidence that CO2 influences the climate and no doubt whatever that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is also, however, evidence that CO2 does not have the effect claimed. There are reasonable and competing claims ... who is the layman to believe? Now I am not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in chemistry and the basic arguments are easy enough to follow. Based on my understanding of the science I find the claims of the AGW side are unproven and overstated. Beyond that, however lies the only issue I have raised in this thread: if the science so obviously supports the AGW side why have they resorted to deception? This practice permeates the debate and certainly includes the IPCC reports. It isn't a question of whether the entire report is a lie; it is enough to know that it contains them.

Ender

[Dan Grelinger]

I have some basic questions that I have not yet found answers to with regard to the global warming / climate change issue. If someone has reasonable responses/answers, I would be grateful to hear them.

1. The climate record is full of change, sometimes drastic change. Is natural change better than manmade change? If so, why? Is natural climate change guided by intelligence that is intent on human benefit? If natural climate change is random and not directed for humanity's benefit, then why do we allow it to continue? If natural change is no better than human change, then why are we not equally working on preventing natural climate change? It is futile to halt any climate change contribution by mankind if we can't halt random climate change that is not directed to our benefit. Anyone remember Mount Pinatubo?

2. The carbon that mankind is digging up and sucking up from the earth came from where? I assume that all that carbon was in our atmosphere in the past. And hello? We're still here regardless, maybe even because, of it.

3. The biological record of the earth indicates very strongly that 'warm earth' is good, 'cold earth' is bad for life. And we happen to be life. Now, the whole nuclear winter thing from years ago was scary. Periods of cold have corresponded with mass extintions. However, periods of a warm earth correspond with a proliferation of life. Is life the greater good? Or just some strange concept that all change but manmade change is good, and that any change man contributes to the environment must be bad by some principle I don't understand.

4. Isn't the earth due for a return to an ice age as part of a long naturally occuring temperature cycle on the earth? Would that be better than man's supposed global warming?

5. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is THE food source for all green plants, and many others. They are made primarily of carbon, and they don't get it from water or the soil. Plants grow better with more of it in the atmosphere. Crops are more productive with higher levels of carbon dioxide. If we are concerned about increasing the capacity of the earth to feed all of mankind, wouldn't we want more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

What I sense is a, 'oh my gosh, things are changing, and we have no clue what will happen, and this uncertainty makes us want to stop the change', coupled with a morality of 'the world would be so better off without mankind because we are bad.' As you can see, I am not a 'global warming denier'. But, I do see a whole lot of definite pain and suffering being proposed for society, along with a surrender of control to an increasingly alarming world government (tyrany?), only because of fear of the unknown. In my book, creating suffering and surrendering freedoms to mitigate an unknown scenario is kind of stupid.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Ender

Thank you. That's a refreshing (and regrettably rare) attitude.

Ya, well I guess I came across as a Catholic/AGW Nazi or something. I love fresh air, water and green trees. I saw the wreck we made since the undustrial revolution up until EPA regulations put some restraint on the toxic dumping. Do you remember the 1960's? Things had gotten pretty bad. We have come a long way since the 70's but without regulation we all would be walking around with gas masks by now. Ther are still many rivers and bodies of water that I would not want to swim in. How about you?

Originally Posted by Ender

Not at all. There is clearly evidence that CO2 influences the climate and no doubt whatever that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is also, however, evidence that CO2 does not have the effect claimed. There are reasonable and competing claims ... who is the layman to believe? Now I am not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in chemistry and the basic arguments are easy enough to follow. Based on my understanding of the science I find the claims of the AGW side are unproven and overstated. Beyond that, however lies the only issue I have raised in this thread: if the science so obviously supports the AGW side why have they resorted to deception? This practice permeates the debate and certainly includes the IPCC reports. It isn't a question of whether the entire report is a lie; it is enough to know that it contains them.

"If the science so obviously supports the AGW side why have they resorted to deception?" It is done probably more than we realize in all sorts of research beyond the AGW issue. Maybe you wouldn't tweek data to publish a significant study but someone more desperate (nonCatholic of course) would for any number of reasons including fame and research grants.

I am actually more concerned now about mountaintop mining and deforestation in the rainforests. It is shortsighted poor stewardship.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

I am actually more concerned now about mountaintop mining and deforestation in the rainforests. It is shortsighted poor stewardship.

These are valid concerns and there are reasonable steps that can be taken to address the problems these activities cause. To disagree with AGW and its associated "cures" is not to suggest that there are not real environmental issues that can and should be resolved.

Twenty years ago the thinking among foresters was not to clear forest undergrowth and to put out fires as quickly as possible. Now the thinking is it is better to let fires burn to replenish the soil, neutralize lakes, and provide opportunity for new growth and more productive habitats. There are people on both sides of the issue and one position is clearly wrong but neither group can reasonably be said to oppose good forest management. They disagree on what works best. The same is true of most people involved in the AGW debate and this is why there is no moral issue involved.

Ender

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

I have some basic questions that I have not yet found answers to with regard to the global warming / climate change issue. If someone has reasonable responses/answers, I would be grateful to hear them.

1. The climate record is full of change, sometimes drastic change. Is natural change better than manmade change? If so, why? Is natural climate change guided by intelligence that is intent on human benefit? If natural climate change is random and not directed for humanity's benefit, then why do we allow it to continue? If natural change is no better than human change, then why are we not equally working on preventing natural climate change? It is futile to halt any climate change contribution by mankind if we can't halt random climate change that is not directed to our benefit. Anyone remember Mount Pinatubo?

2. The carbon that mankind is digging up and sucking up from the earth came from where? I assume that all that carbon was in our atmosphere in the past. And hello? We're still here regardless, maybe even because, of it.

3. The biological record of the earth indicates very strongly that 'warm earth' is good, 'cold earth' is bad for life. And we happen to be life. Now, the whole nuclear winter thing from years ago was scary. Periods of cold have corresponded with mass extintions. However, periods of a warm earth correspond with a proliferation of life. Is life the greater good? Or just some strange concept that all change but manmade change is good, and that any change man contributes to the environment must be bad by some principle I don't understand.

4. Isn't the earth due for a return to an ice age as part of a long naturally occuring temperature cycle on the earth? Would that be better than man's supposed global warming?

5. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is THE food source for all green plants, and many others. They are made primarily of carbon, and they don't get it from water or the soil. Plants grow better with more of it in the atmosphere. Crops are more productive with higher levels of carbon dioxide. If we are concerned about increasing the capacity of the earth to feed all of mankind, wouldn't we want more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

What I sense is a, 'oh my gosh, things are changing, and we have no clue what will happen, and this uncertainty makes us want to stop the change', coupled with a morality of 'the world would be so better off without mankind because we are bad.' As you can see, I am not a 'global warming denier'. But, I do see a whole lot of definite pain and suffering being proposed for society, along with a surrender of control to an increasingly alarming world government (tyrany?), only because of fear of the unknown. In my book, creating suffering and surrendering freedoms to mitigate an unknown scenario is kind of stupid.

It may be true that global warming is good for life in general, and even for some people in particular. Responsible climate scientists do not claim otherwise. But what can be predicted fairly reliably is that if the climate warms enough then sea levels will rise. A large fraction of humanity now lives on land that is one or two meters above sea level. These people will be displaced. Who will receive them and give them new land to live on? It will be a humanitarian crisis and possibly a political crisis as these refugees fight for a place to live. In two or three generations things will settle out and life will go on (maybe). But is it just that we who live above 100 meters should have no care for how our actions are affecting the people who live below 2 meters?

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

It may be true that global warming is good for life in general, and even for some people in particular. Responsible climate scientists do not claim otherwise. But what can be predicted fairly reliably is that if the climate warms enough then sea levels will rise. A large fraction of humanity now lives on land that is one or two meters above sea level. These people will be displaced. Who will receive them and give them new land to live on? It will be a humanitarian crisis and possibly a political crisis as these refugees fight for a place to live. In two or three generations things will settle out and life will go on (maybe). But is it just that we who live above 100 meters should have no care for how our actions are affecting the people who live below 2 meters?

If global warming is good for life in general, we have a possible conflict then between life in general, versus those that live in low areas.

Is there an economic analysis that compares the cost of arresting global warming to mankind, versus the cost of assisting displaced persons. Any serious analysis I've seen of what mankind must do to ACTUALLY arrest global warming indicates that this world would be a much different (and not better) place. Some have labelled the changes necessary to halt global warming as impossible. Standards of livings would be significantly affected, with resulting negative impacts on the poorest of the poor.

Are there simulations of what weather pattern changes will do? In the past, many deserts were actually very fertile places. Could that happen if the climate continues to change? Increased rainfall would seem to be an affect of a warmer climate.

Are dikes a viable solution? It's old technology, and it works, and could very well preserve land mass, and seems to be extremely cheaper than the worldwide global change required to attempt to arrest global warming.

[edwest2]

A lot of guesswork here. There shouldn't be. Science can be manipulated.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674047143


The International Journal of Climatology makes it clear that making accurate predictions about the next season, much less the following year, is an iffy proposition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0279AE4.d04t04


And there are name scientists who are on the side of doubting the real reason for whatever you want to call "climate change."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...838421366.html






Peace,
Ed

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by edwest2

...Industry is the primary culprit, but the average person can do very little to stop what is occurring. Only the owners of coal-fired plants, massive livestock operations, and logging companies can make a very large, very quick difference.

I think we all have to do our parts -- individuals, households, businesses, schools, churches, all levels of government, the rich and the poor. This is one problem, as JPII said, is the responsibility of everyone. There's no magic bullet.

My husband and I have reduced our GHG emissions since 1990 by over 60% cost-effectively, saving us $1000s, without lowering our living standard, even increasing it a bit -- that in addition to always living close to work and shops (within one or two miles) since I became aware that oil is a finite, rapidly depleting resource back in the early 70s, and desiring to save some for future generations.

I started a thread to address this very issue, so if you have some good ideas for reducing GHGs (esp if they reduce other harms and save money), be sure to let us know: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=656903

I think it's a good idea that even if one is not convinced AGW is real to neverthess implement those feasible measure that save money without lowering living standards or any sacrifice. That could get us a long way.

[boclucky14]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I became aware that oil is a finite, rapidly depleting resource back in the early 70s, and desiring to save some for future generations.

This is a commonly held belief - that oil is a finite resource. It was commonly accepted that these came from some period of history in the Earth when there was a huge amount of vegetation on Earth, the Carboniferous Period - obviously, stuff dies, gets buried, and supposedly became energy waiting for humans to tap. The process supposedly took millions of years.

The thing is that this is true with coal - science can definitely state that coal came from dead vegetation. However, no one can offer any evidence of where oil or natural gas came from. Considering some is found at levels of the Earth, that, if from dead vegetation or animals, then would be before the Carboniferious Period.

I'm willing to bet the Earth turns out more oil every day, and not from dead vegetation. But there's no scientific proof either way.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by boclucky14

This is a commonly held belief - that oil is a finite resource. It was commonly accepted that these came from some period of history in the Earth when there was a huge amount of vegetation on Earth, the Carboniferous Period - obviously, stuff dies, gets buried, and supposedly became energy waiting for humans to tap. The process supposedly took millions of years.

The thing is that this is true with coal - science can definitely state that coal came from dead vegetation. However, no one can offer any evidence of where oil or natural gas came from. Considering some is found at levels of the Earth, that, if from dead vegetation or animals, then would be before the Carboniferious Period.

I'm willing to bet the Earth turns out more oil every day, and not from dead vegetation. But there's no scientific proof either way.

Actually, there is:


http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0801....2008.542.html




Peace,
Ed

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

3. The biological record of the earth indicates very strongly that 'warm earth' is good, 'cold earth' is bad for life. And we happen to be life. Now, the whole nuclear winter thing from years ago was scary. Periods of cold have corresponded with mass extintions. However, periods of a warm earth correspond with a proliferation of life. Is life the greater good? Or just some strange concept that all change but manmade change is good, and that any change man contributes to the environment must be bad by some principle I don't understand.

I just know hat I do not remember such heat in years past.

More than 2,000 heat records matched or broken

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8611EL20120702

[edwest2]

How far back do you want to go and what part of the planet are you referring to?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...-not-long-shot


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8387599/...ors-heat-wave/


Scroll down a little for the US bar graph

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news...lows-across-us


In 1983, in the summer, we had a 103 degree Fahrenheit day. You'll note that the 1950s and 1980s have close numbers regarding record highs.


I am very confident that the very wealthy will contact their friends in the scientific community to fund various schemes already proposed to combat the perceived, and in my view, unproven threat.




Peace,
Ed

[Matilda Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.


Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn't notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.