Fear / Loathing / Reality

[dbasnett]

"Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet."

Three scientist studied a system that has been running for billions of years, and is probably the most complicated and chaotic system we can imagine. They concluded that man was responsible for what was happening.

"Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains."

Science to the rescue!

"First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink."

Or is it...

"Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research."

When it comes to complicated / chaotic systems common sense needs to play a part. It is up to us to make certain that those that lead, and those that scream fire, are doing a good job. My opinion from the beginning has been that the reasons given for climate change and Occam's razor never met.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Three scientist studied a system that has been running for billions of years, and is probably the most complicated and chaotic system we can imagine. They concluded that man was responsible for what was happening.

To be fair there is good scientific evidence the CFC's damage the Ozone layer. When CFC's breakdown they produce chlorine (this is scientifically provable in a lab) chlorine depletes Ozone, again provable.

So whether or not CFC's can on there own be proved to have caused the whole in the Ozone layer (not the separate seasonal one over the south pole) there is proof that they can and do cause damage to the Ozone layer.

For that reason alone they should and are banned and a lot brighter people then you or me think so too.

I have to say i have noticed that you are often very sceptical of scientific research that goes against your own belief system. You don't believe that global warming is man made and this seems to colour your judgement on the issue.

Rather then making uninformed statements on the subject and pouring scorn on scientists that have no agenda but to further our understanding of the world and they way we interact with it, maybe you should actually read a little more on the subject and not jump on statement like the above that if you read it doesn't even back up what your saying.

And this idea you have of just because some thing are very large or happen over a long period of time we are unable to understand them or test them is just plain wrong.

Oh and Science is a constantly evolving thing, as we continue to test our hypothesis, so our understanding of what is going on changes, this is how Science works !!!

[dbasnett]

To be fair there is good scientific evidence the CFC's damage the Ozone layer. When CFC's breakdown they produce chlorine (this is scientifically provable in a lab) chlorine depletes Ozone, again provable.

So whether or not CFC's can on there own be proved to have caused the whole in the Ozone layer (not the separate seasonal one over the south pole) there is proof that they can and do cause damage to the Ozone layer.

For that reason alone they should and are banned and a lot brighter people then you or me think so too.

I have to say i have noticed that you are often very sceptical of scientific research that goes against your own belief system. You don't believe that global warming is man made and this seems to colour your judgement on the issue.

Rather then making uninformed statements on the subject and pouring scorn on scientists that have no agenda but to further our understanding of the world and they way we interact with it, maybe you should actually read a little more on the subject and not jump on statement like the above that if you read it doesn't even back up what your saying.

And this idea you have of just because some thing are very large or happen over a long period of time we are unable to understand them or test them is just plain wrong.

Oh and Science is a constantly evolving thing, as we continue to test our hypothesis, so our understanding of what is going on changes, this is how Science works !!!

My believe system is that we aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. You also made the assumption that I am uninformed. Here is a chart that is similar (if not the actual one) to the one that appeared in Al Gore's book.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...rature_Rev_png

Looks like the data is saying cyclical to me. Of course the focus has always been on a similar chart, but only showing the last 100 years.

As to this "Rather then making uninformed statements on the subject and pouring scorn on scientists that have no agenda..." How naive are you? If you are a scientist and have a grant to study the effect of CFC's, how much money will you get next year if you find no cause / effect?

I admire scientist, but obviously I don't hold them as near to gods as you do.

[dbasnett]

Just to be clear. I am not in favor of crapping where I eat. The point I am trying to make is that to often some trusted authority makes a gloom and doom statement, announces a fix, and because we are afraid they control us. The bailout is another example of that.

Do you really think that Mr. Bernake et al actually knew what would happen if they didn't bail the banks out? I am not ready to anoint them gods, so it was only opinion. We can only hope that that opinion was truly motivated by the welfare of the masses, and not the rich looking out for the rich.

Wasn't it odd that Mr. Obama, who wasn't for off-shore drilling when running, changed his mind about it, and then shortly after a simple device fails and we need a moratorium. (I say simple because I spent several months on many different oil platforms in the GOM. One of the first questions I asked was what happened if the pipe broke. One of the engineers explained the mechanism and the fact that it was fundamentally quite simple. The other thing I can tell you as fact is that every rig that I was on had "Shut-In" devices every where. It was hard to be farther than 10 feet away from one. The purpose of the device was to shut EVERYTHING down in the case of an emergency. We were told if you pushed the button the rig woud be down for a minimum of 6 months.)

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Looks like the data is saying cyclical to me. Of course the focus has always been on a similar chart, but only showing the last 100 years.

There is a separate hole over the south pole that yes does indeed seem to suggest a cyclical effect, but just because this is true does not mean that the fact that CFC's damage the ozone layer is not also true.

How naive are you? If you are a scientist and have a grant to study the effect of CFC's, how much money will you get next year if you find no cause / effect?

The original research on CFC's was carried out by an independent British scientist called James Lovelock who had no grant or funding to research it, as at that time nobody else was even worried about it.

I admire scientist, but obviously I don't hold them as near to gods as you do.

I certainly don't hold Scientists up as gods, but when they do research that is independently verified and stands up to scientific tests and scrutiny then i certainly find it more compelling then those who without being able to prove otherwise make counter claims. (i am not have a pop at you with that statement by the way, but people in general)

In the UK we do have a long tradition of independent scientists, and it does trouble me when companies hire scientists to do research for there own interests, but there are still a lot of independent studies happening out there.

I do not believe that scientist are infallible or that they cant be wrong, or even that they can't be corrupt, but there is too much data out there from too many sources to suggest that CFC's do not damage the Ozone layer.

[Shaggy Hiker]

In the case of Mr. Bernake, he did believe that he knew what would happen if he didn't bail out the banks. He is an expert on the Great Depression, which means that he has studied that period enough to have reached a theory as to why it happened, and he was acting on his theory. His actions and statements were consistent and logical within his frame of perspective.

On the other hand, I have never studied the Great Depression, and have never formed my own opinion as to why it happened. Nor have I studied the Dutch Tulip Craze, which is an even more interesting phenomenon. However, one of the problems with this type of thing is that they are sufficiently rare, and sufficiently unique that you can never have a controlled study of the phenomena. I have seen them happen in all kinds of areas to greater or lesser extents, but they are unpredictable. Interestingly, with the onset of games like Second Life and WOW, it may become possible to study what amounts to 'economic solitons' with something bordering on empirical rigor. That would be interesting.

One point that the military teaches is that it is necessary for a leader to lead. You must make a decision and act on it, regardless of whether the decision is necessarily the right one (choose the wrong one more often than not and you won't be leading long). Mr. Bernake made a decision, based on his plausible, if unprovable, theory, and acted on it. I wasn't completely thrilled with the decision, but he did his job, and I have no problem with that.

When it comes to science, there are many views pushing in many directions. For things like global warming, it doesn't really matter whether the science is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not we benefit from the steps taken as a result. In the case of global climate change, there are a handful of implausible alternatives (solar shields, aerosol blankets, and the like) which could cause real harm, but the bulk of the options that are likely to make it through are entirely to our benefit. If this country, which is poor in oil and few other raw materials, is pushed to a renewable electric power base...how can that be a bad thing? We certainly don't benefit from being reliant on global oil, nor would we benefit from being highly involved in global oil. However, we WOULD benefit from renewable energy because, whatever that phrase ends up meaning, we have LOADS of it. Of course, power generation isn't really the issue. We can find or develop whatever we need there, yet it will do us no good unless we overcome the very technological barrier to making it work for us: Our batteries SUCK!

Create a battery that has even 20% of the energy density of a gallon of gasoline and we'd stop using oil tomorrow.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Just to be clear. I am not in favor of crapping where I eat. The point I am trying to make is that to often some trusted authority makes a gloom and doom statement, announces a fix, and because we are afraid they control us. The bailout is another example of that.

Do you really think that Mr. Bernake et al actually knew what would happen if they didn't bail the banks out? I am not ready to anoint them gods, so it was only opinion. We can only hope that that opinion was truly motivated by the welfare of the masses, and not the rich looking out for the rich.

Wasn't it odd that Mr. Obama, who wasn't for off-shore drilling when running, changed his mind about it, and then shortly after a simple device fails and we need a moratorium.

Firstly i think that Mr. Bernake and virtually every other finance minister in the developed countries were s**t scared about what was likely to happen if they hadn't bailed out the banks. Of course they can't know exactly what would happen but i think they had a pretty good idea, and what's more, most economists (that i heard talk about the crisis) agreed.

In the UK and much of Europe there was little disagreement between the various political parties either, they were all in agreement that the banks had to be bailed out.

Of course all those in opposition were happy to blame the party in power for the crisis, but once it happened there was little disagreement on the bank bailout (in Europe anyway)

What i think needs to be taken into account here is that this financial went world wide, it affected virtually every major developed country in the world, and would take an extraordinary conspiracy for all countries to only have carried out the bailout for the Rich bankers.

What i find incredibly galling is that part of the reason we had to bail them out is all the rules are stacked in there favour, years and years of lobbying had got the banks freedom to act in the financial markets pretty much however they wanted and with few consequences if they got it wrong.

Look at for example Citi group, a huge bank but also a retail deposit bank, if we had let them fail then all the deposits held by citi group would have just gone up in smoke, consumers money is not protected.

Look i don't like the bailout anymore than the next man, i don't like the banks and i don't like the fact that so soon after we have bailed them all out they are announcing huge bonuses again, but i really dont see what alternative we had.

I know you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks, and i do agree with the sentiment just not the reality, but here is a question for you then, do you really believe that the whole G20 group of nations all just bailed out the banks because they had rich friends at the banks ?

I would like us to all be in a position were this can never ever happen again, and i believe that the only way to do this in a world wide financial market is to regulate the banks against taking to much risk.

As for Obama's position, no it doesn't surprise me. Arnie did pretty much the same thing in California, it's human nature to happily ignore risk until we are confronted with the reality of it !

[dbasnett]

I think the next big shock is that this is far from over. What everyone seems not to talk about is that we bailed them out by financing debt. Greece, and from the looks of it, several others are about to need similar bailouts, and more debt will need to be financed. Interest rates have to go up. This could start feeding on itself, if it hasn't already. Sooner or later the loss has to be real.

I think some economist have good intentions, but if the climate is the most chaotic / complex system in the world , then the world economy is a close second. I don't think we are smart enough to make definitive pronouncements about systems like this. NASA had their heads handed to them for getting the Shuttle program wrong twice, and it is simple compared to climate / financial statements.

Why don't we just slow down. Yesterday's fiasco on Wall Street should be an indication that speed has consequences.

[Xanith]

When it comes to science, there are many views pushing in many directions. For things like global warming, it doesn't really matter whether the science is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not we benefit from the steps taken as a result. In the case of global climate change, there are a handful of implausible alternatives (solar shields, aerosol blankets, and the like) which could cause real harm, but the bulk of the options that are likely to make it through are entirely to our benefit. If this country, which is poor in oil and few other raw materials, is pushed to a renewable electric power base...how can that be a bad thing? We certainly don't benefit from being reliant on global oil, nor would we benefit from being highly involved in global oil. However, we WOULD benefit from renewable energy because, whatever that phrase ends up meaning, we have LOADS of it. Of course, power generation isn't really the issue. We can find or develop whatever we need there, yet it will do us no good unless we overcome the very technological barrier to making it work for us: Our batteries SUCK!

Create a battery that has even 20% of the energy density of a gallon of gasoline and we'd stop using oil tomorrow.

I never thought I would hear you say that science doesn’t matter. Should we be spending billions of dollars on something that isn’t even necessary just because one group of people thinks its better for the environment?

I am all for renewable energy and making the US energy independent but I am not for mandating costly and unfeasible technology (like the huge failure of corn made ethanol). While the US is poor in its oil generation capacity based on consumption it is rich in natural gas, coal, and oil shale. Such supplies could power the US for hundreds of years more with no problem, if such supplies were allowed to be exploited.

I also do not understand why we are not exploiting nuclear technology. One would think such a technology that produces 0 carbon emissions in this day in age would be more popular.

Hopefully one day we can get to the point that we can replace fossil fuels, but today isn’t that day. And I think that forcing costly so called “green” renewable power on the market is a huge mistake. Until such renewable energy is cost effective and more attractive without government subsidy it should remain on the sidelines. Let the free market decide, having the government force something never works, and often leads to disastrous results.

X

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think the next big shock is that this is far from over. What everyone seems not to talk about is that we bailed them out by financing debt. Greece, and from the looks of it, several others are about to need similar bailouts, and more debt will need to be financed. Interest rates have to go up. This could start feeding on itself, if it hasn't already. Sooner or later the loss has to be real.

Trust me its very real for the Greeks, the Greek government is having to agree to hug deficit cuts (which are highly unpopular with the electorate as this basically means large government wage & job cuts as in Greece the government is probably the biggest employer) in order to qualify for a huge loan from the IMF and the Euro-zone countries. The Greek people will feel the effects of the austerity measures of this for years to come.

The biggest problem facing Greece and other countries is there credit rating which when they get down graded it means the rate of interest that they can borrow goes up massively. which is why they needed this loan.

Also the debt is still there and they will have to pay it back, in fact all the countries that now have a deficit and have borrowed money on the debt markets (including the US) will have to pay the money back, and the way they will do that it by cutting public spending.

I think some economist have good intentions, but if the climate is the most chaotic / complex system in the world , then the world economy is a close second. I don't think we are smart enough to make definitive pronouncements about systems like this. NASA had their heads handed to them for getting the Shuttle program wrong twice, and it is simple compared to climate / financial statements.

The worlds Climate is an incredibly complex system and very unpredictable, the worlds financial system while still unpredictable are completely man made and therefore more susceptible to human interference and its also a system we are more able to effect.

Also you will always have different opinions on things like the bail out but i do believe that the worlds finance ministers basically did what they thought they had to to make sure they kept there respective economies from crashing.

Politically what they did with the bailout was damaging for which ever parties were in power so i don't think that they would have done it just to help a few bankers out at the expense of not being in power in the next parliament.

[dbasnett]

...When it comes to science, there are many views pushing in many directions. For things like global warming, it doesn't really matter whether the science is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not we benefit from the steps taken as a result...

Hold on. Are you saying that it is OK, so long as the outcome is good? End justifies the means? If that is what you are saying I am shocked.

[techgnome]

I am all for renewable energy and making the US energy independent but I am not for mandating costly and unfeasible technology (like the huge failure of corn made ethanol).

Ethanol is actually easy to produce, and is quite efficient... and could be be used to make gas supplies go further and much cheaper... if we stop using corn and switched to something like switch grass. The process that corn has to go through is much more energy expensive than the process switch grass needs, causing it's fuel efficiency to be reduced. The problem is that the middle of this country is full of corn growers, not switch grass farmers. That's the reason corn-based ethanol is so "popular".

While the US is poor in its oil generation capacity based on consumption it is rich in natural gas, coal, and oil shale. Such supplies could power the US for hundreds of years more with no problem, if such supplies were allowed to be exploited.

I thought I had a comment, but by the time I got to it, I'd forgotten it...

I also do not understand why we are not exploiting nuclear technology. One would think such a technology that produces 0 carbon emissions in this day in age would be more popular.

Just a few words regarding this: Three-Mile Island. Yucca Mountain.
It's a stigma... suffice it to say, I'm not sure I want to live near one myself either.

-tg

[homer13j]

Just a few words regarding this: Three-Mile Island. Yucca Mountain.

What's the problem with Yucca Mountain? Besides the small but very vocal bunch who don't want it to be used as a nuke waste storage site, of course...

[Shaggy Hiker]

I never thought I would hear you say that science doesn’t matter. Should we be spending billions of dollars on something that isn’t even necessary just because one group of people thinks its better for the environment?

Well, you and DB are right about that It certainly isn't like me to say that science doesn't matter, and even as I wrote it, I felt I was leaving something out. However, I think I am one of the worst culprits here when it comes to writing horrifically LONG posts, so I wanted to cut it short.

My basic point is that people can argue one way or the other about global warming. I personally believe that we are causing it, but if I'm wrong it wouldn't bother me. The result of people getting fired up about global warming will mean:
1) Lots of unharvestable hot air.
2) Advances in technology which will benefit this country regardless of whether global warming actually is our doing.

Therefore, I am all in favor of climate change because this country never seems to perform at its best unless it is being challenged. This is a challenge that will take us in a good direction. Bring it on.

I am all for renewable energy and making the US energy independent but I am not for mandating costly and unfeasible technology (like the huge failure of corn made ethanol).

I totally agree with every part of that statement.

While the US is poor in its oil generation capacity based on consumption it is rich in natural gas, coal, and oil shale. Such supplies could power the US for hundreds of years more with no problem, if such supplies were allowed to be exploited.

This may or may not be true. We have HUGE coal reserves, but with all the fossil feuls, there are trade-offs to be made. There is no way to extract coal that has no impacts above ground. It just becomes a matter of weighing the wants of one group against that of another.

Let the free market decide, having the government force something never works, and often leads to disastrous results.

And it brought electricity and phone service to all parts of this country, something that would never have happened based on free market economics.


Ultimately, however, it comes down to one thing: Batteries. The only reason there are gas engines in cars, lawnmowers, motorcycles, model airplanes, and anywhere else, is because batteries are TERRIBLE. Electric motors are vastly more efficient than the very best gas engine. If you could have a battery the size of a volume of gas that could give you even half the power of that volume of gas, nobody would ever use gas. If the battery could yield half the power of the same volume of gas, but the electric motor was four times as efficient....well, gas would be smelly, difficult, dangerous, and relatively ineffective.

Batteries are the hinge.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What's the problem with Yucca Mountain? Besides the small but very vocal bunch who don't want it to be used as a nuke waste storage site, of course...

That small group includes every political leader in the state. It was going to be rammed down their throats until they got a politician in sufficient power to prevent it, and that's the key: Nobody is going to volunteer to take this stuff. To find a place, it is necessary to have the government absolutely force it on somebody. The reddest of the red become green when it comes to nuclear waste being stored near them.

Yucca mountain isn't nearly as stable as the talking heads claimed. It's not the least earthquake prone, nor the least permeable rock. It just happened to be a big hole dug in the least populated, politically weakest, place in the country. They knew there would be a fight, they just thought it was a fight they could win easily.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I am all for renewable energy and making the US energy independent

The US Current energy policy (in fact you would be hard put to find any country that does) will never become independent if you carry on with that status quo.

I also do not understand why we are not exploiting nuclear technology. One would think such a technology that produces 0 carbon emissions in this day in age would be more popular.

Because it is dangerous, people don't want the Nuclear power plants built anywhere near them, and also the waste is radioactive and nobody wants to dispose of that either.

Now if we ever manage to figure out how to create a Nuclear Fusion power plant then we are in business !

Hopefully one day we can get to the point that we can replace fossil fuels, but today isn’t that day. And I think that forcing costly so called “green” renewable power on the market is a huge mistake. Until such renewable energy is cost effective and more attractive without government subsidy it should remain on the sidelines.

But one of the great points about renewable energy is it is all based upon (fairly new) technology , and as the technology advances so will the efficiency of the energy conversion, this will then bring down prices.

For this to happen companies need to have a reason to invest in the technology and if government support of the industry is the way to do this then so be it. In the process any country that invests in renewables will be securing their energy independence, and will be less exposed to the current energy markets.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Energy independence could do more for this country than a strong military, and is a matter of national security. It's a very sound use of public policy and public funds.

[dbasnett]

Part of the problem with the storage of waste would go away if we recycled like the French do. I don't have a problem with living near a nuclear plant, soon to be two. Would I prefer the perfect clean solution, you bet.

Watch and see the real outcome of the oil spill if you want to know why we are where we are. I think the law limits the oil companies liability, and it ain't gonna' be enough. The politicians can bang the drums and blow all the smoke they want, but the odds of passing a retroactive law to cover the cost are 0.

[techgnome]

Recycle WHAT? What could possibly be recycled? I'm sure if the rods could be recycled into something that isn't going to give me a 3rd, 4th and 5th eye, there would be some one lined up to do it...since it's hot stuff no one wants to deal with, there shouldn't be any shortage of people lining up to off load their spent rods.

-tg

[dbasnett]

As it turns out there is still quite a bit of fissile material in used rods(25% I think). It also reduces the physical waste to about a fifth of what it is. The problem is that the process produces weapons grade plutonium, so there are a lot of people in the US that are afraid we might be helping terrorist blow us up, blah, blah, blah. Mean while several other countries, France, Japan, USSR think it is a great idea.

[capsulecorpjx]

Taiwan and several islands are losing coastal land from the rising ocean.

There has to be a consequence from evaporating the Earths' oil reserves into the atmosphere, and CO2 is proven to keep heat in.

I believe in the world's scientists over the oil industry lobbyists and PR machine.

And I do believe Al Gore is sincere in his concern.

But that doesn't really matter.

There is no going back now. No way anyone can convince India, China or America to cut back.

If disaster comes, it will come.

The only funny thing might be that the scheduled Ice Age is canceled by Global Warming, in which case it will be a funny, good accident. But if we tip too far into overheating, it might be disastrous.

[homer13j]

Taiwan and several islands are losing coastal land from the rising ocean.

...

And I do believe Al Gore is sincere in his concern.

Yes. Al Gore is so concerned about rising sea levels that he just forked out almost $9 million for a beachfront luxury villa.

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Because you know having only 8 bathrooms just wouldn't be kind enough to the planet.

Do as I say, not as I do...

[dbasnett]

Taiwan and several islands are losing coastal land from the rising ocean.

There has to be a consequence from evaporating the Earths' oil reserves into the atmosphere, and CO2 is proven to keep heat in.

I believe in the world's scientists over the oil industry lobbyists and PR machine.

And I do believe Al Gore is sincere in his concern.

But that doesn't really matter.

There is no going back now. No way anyone can convince India, China or America to cut back.

If disaster comes, it will come.

The only funny thing might be that the scheduled Ice Age is canceled by Global Warming, in which case it will be a funny, good accident. But if we tip too far into overheating, it might be disastrous.

Maybe you should go back and read post #1 and look at the chart I linked to in post #3. I am 100% certain that if anyone is discussing what WILL happen they are:

a - God
or
b - expressing an opinion

It wasn't that along ago in terms of the earth that scientist knew the earth was flat. Scientist 100 years from now will find some of what we know to be amusing.

[capsulecorpjx]

Maybe you should go back and read post #1 and look at the chart I linked to in post #3. I am 100% certain that if anyone is discussing what WILL happen they are:

a - God
or
b - expressing an opinion

It wasn't that along ago in terms of the earth that scientist knew the earth was flat. Scientist 100 years from now will find some of what we know to be amusing.

I don't think that's a good analogy.

[capsulecorpjx]

Yes. Al Gore is so concerned about rising sea levels that he just forked out almost $9 million for a beachfront luxury villa.



Because you know having only 8 bathrooms just wouldn't be kind enough to the planet.

Do as I say, not as I do...

You may be right. Though an explanation is that the problem won't affect his property in San Fransico in his life time.

But despite that, the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with human-caused global warming. I can't believe that many people are in on a conspiracy theory, especially ones that are more thorough with the facts than the average person.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The problem is that the process produces weapons grade plutonium

I suppose you could sell the plutonium to Iran, i hear they have been looking to get there hands on some

And I do believe Al Gore is sincere in his concern.

I couldn't care less what Al Gore thinks, what exactly are his qualifications on the matter ?

There has to be a consequence from evaporating the Earths' oil reserves into the atmosphere, and CO2 is proven to keep heat in.

That's what does make me laugh about Global Warming deniers, there is a simple experiment that shows that if you have air with a higher concentration of C02 then the Air will heat up more then air with a lower concentration of C02, and secondly we can show that there is more C02 in our atmosphere, and if you are uncertain about this just think about the sheer amount of stuff we burns for fuel it all creates C02.

This has to have some effect, what effect and how quickly should be the argument not that it has an effect, it clearly does.

I believe in the world's scientists over the oil industry lobbyists and PR machine.

I believe in our banking system over big Oil, god i believe in the tooth-fairy ahead of Big Oil claims.

It wasn't that along ago in terms of the earth that scientist knew the earth was flat.

You know that has to be one of the most over used and worse quotes people use When talking about Scientific understanding.

The understanding of the Earth being Flat was because people believed that it was not because of Science. As soon as scientific method was used it was shown that the earth was not flat. I know what you are trying to say dbasnett but please use a better analogy.

Also if we look at all Science that way we would never do anything as we would never know enough, at some point you have to say this is what we know to be correct as of now and act on it.

[dbasnett]

How often have scientist known the world of the very small? Better?

[dbasnett]

...But despite that, the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with human-caused global warming.

The vast majority? Do you have scientific proof of that?

Also, please explain this to me, because I obviously don't get it.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...rature_Rev_png

Mistakes of fact happen:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100511...20100511102011

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The vast majority? Do you have scientific proof of that?

This is not something that needs scientific proof but just a show of hands really. I would say from what i have seen a large majority of scientists from are around the world are seeing the same thing, man made global warming. What has hurt the whole perception of Global Warming Science is certain scientists trying to warp the data to suggest that it is happening quicker then it actually is.

Nobody has any clear idea how fast it is all happening and that is the main problem.

If scientists could say with any degree of certainty that in the next 30 - 40 years the world will be 2 degrees hotter then we would be having this argument, but currently they cant.

Also, please explain this to me, because I obviously don't get it.

Well i give in neither do what does it say ?

[dbasnett]

This is not something that needs scientific proof but just a show of hands really. I would say from what i have seen a large majority of scientists from are around the world are seeing the same thing, man made global warming. What has hurt the whole perception of Global Warming Science is certain scientists trying to warp the data to suggest that it is happening quicker then it actually is.

Nobody has any clear idea how fast it is all happening and that is the main problem.

If scientists could say with any degree of certainty that in the next 30 - 40 years the world will be 2 degrees hotter then we would be having this argument, but currently they cant.



Well i give in neither do what does it say ?

I was disagreeing, in particular, with "...with human-caused global warming." Doesn't the chart say that periods of warming / cooling are normal? We just happen to live at a time of natural warming. If the chart is correct what the government doesn't want to tell you is that massive flooding is coming and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

After many years of hearing many facts I believe if we had happened along on the down slope "we" would have been at fault for that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well i give in neither do what does it say ?

No matter what other positions I have, I find that I really can't argue with that statement. Really. I just can't.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Doesn't the chart say that periods of warming / cooling are normal? We just happen to live at a time of natural warming.

Right it is true that the earth does undergo periods of warming and cooling over vast periods of time. From what i have heard from Scientists though they say that the current rate of warming even if slow is just not in the same range as the earth natural warming and cooling cycles.

The Earth natural cycles happen over vast periods of time, the kind of warming we are seeing currently is happening much faster, even if it is still slow.

What i would like to know though is why do you believe that so many scientists (and there really is a large number from a large number of different countries) are misinforming everyone ? or do you just think they are all wrong ?

Also i take it you understand the main premise of man made global warming argument -

- that we can prove in test after test that air with a high C02 content heats up more when in it comes in contact with light, then air with a lower C02 content in fact significantly more,

- and secondly we can measure the levels of C02 in the atmosphere and show that they are increasing, and not only increasing but increasing at a rate that cant be explained by natural causes

- and finally it is a fact that we are burning more stuff then ever before which releases C02 into the atmosphere.

Do you believe any of these 3 statement to be false or dubious ?

[dbasnett]

Right it is true that the earth does undergo periods of warming and cooling over vast periods of time. From what i have heard from Scientists though they say that the current rate of warming even if slow is just not in the same range as the earth natural warming and cooling cycles.

The Earth natural cycles happen over vast periods of time, the kind of warming we are seeing currently is happening much faster, even if it is still slow.

What i would like to know though is why do you believe that so many scientists (and there really is a large number from a large number of different countries) are misinforming everyone ? or do you just think they are all wrong ?

Also i take it you understand the main premise of man made global warming argument -

- that we can prove in test after test that air with a high C02 content heats up more when in it comes in contact with light, then air with a lower C02 content in fact significantly more,

- and secondly we can measure the levels of C02 in the atmosphere and show that they are increasing, and not only increasing but increasing at a rate that cant be explained by natural causes

- and finally it is a fact that we are burning more stuff then ever before which releases C02 into the atmosphere.

Do you believe any of these 3 statement to be false or dubious ?

I agree with all three statements. So what? Do you disagree with the graph?

Ask the scientists what the conditions on the planet were at all of the highs and lows on the graph. I think the answer is that water levels rose and we had ice ages. In other words, if "we" had zero environmental impact on the planet would we still have global flooding and ice ages?

If the answer is affirmative then we, IMHO, are not addressing the real problem, like where is the coastal population going to live, and how are they going to make the transition. Hell, I may have beachfront property since I am only 529' ASL.

A scientist not "knowing" the answer is akin to a politician being at fault for anything.

If your point of view is that scientist "know" the future then you have anointed them gods, and I don't agree with that. Do they have an informed opinion, sure they do.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I agree with all three statements. So what? Do you disagree with the graph?

Not at all, it is quite evident that the earth goes through ice ages & warming cycles, but form all accounts these happen over quite large periods of time, and these cycles are not all exactly the same and most probably change as the age of the planet changes.

So is your position since there are natural global warming cycles that Man made global warming doesn't matter, that it is irrelevant ? even if the speed of man made global warming maybe much much greater then the natural type ?

Should we not care if we speed the earth into a new ice age as it would have happened anyway eventually ?

[dbasnett]

Not at all, it is quite evident that the earth goes through ice ages & warming cycles, but form all accounts these happen over quite large periods of time, and these cycles are not all exactly the same and most probably change as the age of the planet changes.

So is your position since there are natural global warming cycles that Man made global warming doesn't matter, that it is irrelevant ? even if the speed of man made global warming maybe much much greater then the natural type ?

Should we not care if we speed the earth into a new ice age as it would have happened anyway eventually ?

I have never argued for taking a dump where you eat. What I resent is Fat Boy Al Gore waving his finger in my face saying "we" are the cause and if we don't do x,y,z, then we will have global flooding. He always leaves out the fact that it is going to happen whether we do x,y,z or not.

You don't mind being controlled by fear because of the positive outcome, I do.

[capsulecorpjx]

I have never argued for taking a dump where you eat. What I resent is Fat Boy Al Gore waving his finger in my face saying "we" are the cause and if we don't do x,y,z, then we will have global flooding. He always leaves out the fact that it is going to happen whether we do x,y,z or not.

You don't mind being controlled by fear because of the positive outcome, I do.

I think the idea is that if you're on a runaway train on an unfinished track heading into the mountain, it's better to pull on the brakes and increase your chances of stopping, rather than shovel coal into the steam engine.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What I resent is Fat Boy Al Gore waving his finger in my face saying "we" are the cause and if we don't do x,y,z, then we will have global flooding. He always leaves out the fact that it is going to happen whether we do x,y,z or not.

Al Gore didn't start it, he is just the most visible messenger. As for whether or not we would have coastal flooding if we were able to reverse the CO2 build up....who's to say? There will be change, but it would generally be pretty slow, and without the input, it might not even be in the same direction. On the other hand, the response to climate change would benefit this country, so where is the downside? We need that technological advance to keep right on rolling. If it rolls in the direction of lower resource consumption via greater efficiency, then that's just plain good.

On the other hand, ocean acidification has the potential to collapse the base of the food chain, which would make sea level rise the least of our worries.

[dbasnett]

@capsule - Not a good analogy. A better, IMHO, would be that you jump off of a 100 story building and on the way down you fashion a crude parachute from your shirt. Though I applaud your efforts I think you are fooling yourself.

@shag / capsule - Would you both decide if you believe science or not. Everything I can find says that ice age / flooding events are cyclical roughly on a 150,000 year cycle. I can't discuss this if you believe the 50% of science that supports your claims, but not the other 50%.

I don't think that we disagree about a change in energy policy.

Unlike shaggy, the means is as important as the end to me. In general I find this time we live in to have more and more people that don't actually think, or understand what is going on. If Keith Blabbermouth, Chris "I am going to interrupt you" Matthews, Sean Vanity, or Rush "I can out shout you" Limbaugh (not proud of where he is from) say it, a large group of people believe it.

And really, is one politician that much different than another? It reminds me of the joke about the man offering the woman a $1M to have sex with him. She agrees and the man asks how about $10K. The woman, in shock, asks what does he think she is. The man responds by telling her that they had already established what she was, now they we just haggling over price.

[homer13j]

One thing is certain - neither side can produce enough conclusive evidence to prove the other side is wrong. Only the passage of time will reveal who is right or wrong about global warming or climate change or whatever the hell they're calling it these days.

While I was taking a meteorology class in college one thing was constantly stressed: we know very little about how our atmosphere works - particularly the upper levels which interact with the sun's rays and drive surface weather patterns. Future climate predictions are based on computer models that no matter how complex will never come close to having enough data to accurately predict what's going to happen a hundred years from now on a truly global scale. The best they can do is guess. And it's been shown time and again some (certainly not all) scientists and researchers have been fudging the numbers. So call me a "denier" if you wish, but I prefer the term "skeptic."

Anyone who tells you "the science is settled" is pushing an agenda. Or a complete fool.

[homer13j]

On the other hand, the response to climate change would benefit this country, so where is the downside?

If it kills off what's left of our industrial base and turns my city into another Detroit (we're halfway there already) then I would say that's a pretty big downside.