What Do We Think About Climate Change

<<<<From the assassination of JFK to 9/11, conspiracy theories are almost always regarded as nutty paranoid fantasies imagined by those hopelessly out-of-touch with reality; unworthy of serious debate ... unless, of course, we're talking about the global warming "conspiracy" theories circulating around right-wing America.
No sooner did the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the news, calling on the world's leading industrial nations -- especially the U.S. and China -- to curb greenhouse gas emissions now, while something can still be done (on the relative cheap to boot!), than all the "junk-science" detectors come out of the woodwork to warn all of us poor idiots to beware of the "global warming conspiracy."
Two of the more prominent examples include CNN's Glenn Beck, who recently did an hour-long segment called "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," in which he predictably evoked Hitler and Nazism to smear anyone concerned about the environment. (For civics sake, enough with the Hitler references already!)
On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Alexander Cockburn offering a "leftist" contrarian climate change argument, disputing the existence of any link between CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
For the record, I didn't see, nor do I intend to see, "Inconvenient Truth." I was never subjected to any "save the earth" curriculum that my kids now receive. I do not belong to any environmental organization and, frankly, the upper-class, granola-bar-eating, healthier-than-thou, eco-fundamentalism characteristic of some "liberals" is about as attractive to me as growing up female under the Taliban.
I'm not a scientist -- just like most people reading this right now. But like Bertrand Russell said: "Clearly, if you are going to believe anything outside your own experience, you should have some reason for believing it. Usually, the reason is authority... . It is true that most of us must inevitably depend upon (authority) for most of our knowledge." When it comes to global warming I make Pascal's Wager and put it on. It's better to believe the warnings of global warming scientists and adhere to the "precautionary principle" than not believe and suffer the consequences.
I'll put my money on the IPCC -- the most authoritative body of climate scientists in the world, whose work is peer reviewed; unlike the mutterings of nonscientist ideologues who dismiss the work of real scientists who, we're told, secretly want to destroy capitalism, halt technological progress and keep the poor, poor. Apparently, with the global warming conspiracy crowd, climate science is filled with a bunch of Unabombers; a collection of Ted Kaczynskis. But instead of getting the koo-koo treatment, they get prime time?
And I don't buy the they're-in-it-for-the-government-money argument, either. Everyone knows that the real research money is in defense. And it's just absurd to think that corporations and governments want to give millions of dollars to scientists whose research indicates our entire way of living is a global threat.
But, when it comes down to it: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it," as Max Planck wrote in his autobiography.
So I don't care to argue much about global warming. I mean, John Maynard Keynes had a point -- in the long run, we're all dead. But for me and my kids, when the climate change contrarians are dead, it's us who'll be caught up in the "long run." That's why recent polls have shown that young Americans -- the long runners -- are particularly sensitive to environmental issues, with 77 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds saying they favor the U.S. signing an international treaty requiring less emissions from power plants and cars, compared to just 48 percent of those 65 and older, as Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton discuss in their book "The Foreign Policy Dis*Connect."
What we've gotta do, young America, is take over the environmental conversation and policy in this country. Matter of fact, the environmental opinions of anyone whose average life expectancy comes in, say, the next 20 years or so, should be considered irrelevant.
I remember being admonished sometimes by older folks to "mind my business when grown folks are talking." Well, on global warming and the environment, here's where we flip the script. This is the one conversation where we need to say: mind your business when young folks are talking.>>>>

****
Emphasis mine. This about sums up a lot.

In matters of such import i would say any approach that is not cautionary is folly.

****
It might be a cliche but it cannot be overemphasized ; We only have one planet.

 

The science is not that difficult to understand; research it yourself and you will see. Also, it's easy to understand when one side gets REPEATEDLY caught in acts of dishonesty and even fraud, be it exaggeration, manipulating data in their favor, refusing to provide critical algorithms which are essential for independent verification of findings, and that side is the warmers. If their case is so 'air-tight', then why do they resort to these tactics?

Furthermore, authority is a piss-poor reason to believe in ANYTHING, just as an appeal to authority (consensus) is an invalid argument.


Jimbo

 

<<<Furthermore, authority is a piss-poor reason to believe in ANYTHING, just as an appeal to authority (consensus) is an invalid argument.>>>

Ok that's fine. But it does beg the question; What makes you believe in what you believe?

 

You fool. "World Government" Bertrand Russell said this before there was "scientific consensus" that there was, indeed, Global Cooling. He said this under the employ, as official propagandist, of the British Government in service to the elite class - which his family was a cornerstone. He also maintained that food should be used to control the plebs, world food supplies should be used to control countries, though nuclear weapons were evil, bacteriological war (specifically, that Bubonic plague should be released every so-many years) should be used to control population, did more to undermine marraige than anyone short of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that Elite (his family) power had to be insured, that "we must expect vast upheavals and appalling suffering before stability is attained" under his plan. "The road, I fear, is long, but there is no reason for losing sight of the ultimate hope." (Barack's been here!) Even in the specter of global warming, he later came to his senses when confronted with the idea that the world was actually cooling - "In this, we have been foolish but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever."
Interesting that one would pick this scientist as one to quote in the argument that global warming theory is based upon scientific method. Where did you draw his name - at your latest global warming, PETA and progressive worker's rally? Did you have any "Clo-Fu"? Jeez, you people are destroying the planet.

 

And TTT, quit acting like you were awake in your logic class. It is obvious to all that they don't even teach logic in schools anymore.

 

I do not need logic to detect considerable anger in your posts, for reasons that remain mysterious to me.

I also get the impression that you probably have not read Bertrand Russell. I studied five years of mathematics and have enjoyed his writings on philosophy and mathematics. Most people recognize that he had intelligent things to say.

But that is not why i quoted the above article.

My stance is that the most important thing here - warming or no warming - is to proceed with great caution when it comes to altering, without yet fully understanding the consequences, our one and only life supporting spaceship.

 

Liberals are attacking civilization. Some from within. Some from outside. How would one expect I post?
Sorry to step on your Gaia.

 

TTT,

I started out on the 'warmer' side, 20+ years ago. I became a member of Greenpeace. The big thing was so-called 'ozone depletion' back then, and how the Montreal Protocol was going to 'solve' that 'problem'. Being too smart for my own good, I started delving deep into the scientific literature on the subject and found out it was all just a pile of crap! Little or no truth to it at all! Ozone can't be depleted as it is constantly being re-manufactured by the thousands of tons daily! The hole was always there; a Danish(?) scientist had predicted the hole in the 1930's!
The big winner in the whole affair would be DuPont since
their patent for R-12 had long ago expired and they held the patent for R-134, so they were big behind-the-scenes supporters, even while they feinted opposition in public.

Now I may have been 'smart' but boy was I naive! I went to the senior leadership at my local Greenpeace chapter with my new 'revelation' and was pulled aside and told "Yeah, we know about that stuff already. But the greater good we can accomplish with the new political power this will give us, blah, blah, blah...)

I started to look at a lot of other cherished beliefs of the movement and found that they were all 5% truth with 95% ******** wrapped around it.

I hope this was the answer you were looking for, not the technical reasons for what I believe. If you want the technical reasons in detail, go re-read the thread; it's all there for you complete with charts and graphs.

But here's a synopsis/talking points for your consideration:

• None of the warming since 1850 has been in any way unusual compared with past warming events.

• CO2 levels were increasing in the atmosphere since the early 19th century while anthropogenic CO2 releases really began around 1950

• There's very poor correlation between rising CO2 levels during the 20th century and warming periods during that century

This is all for the simple stuff. The more complex stuff, like climate models, the state of the surface measurement system, satellite and balloon data, clouds and feedbacks, the paleoclimate record and issues of oceanic CO2 solubility can be dealt with later, once you have chewed on those.

Jimbo

 

Mark , Whoever you consider them to be i am not one of them.

I do not subscribe to any kind of political ideology.

It seems to me that you like to use labels and generalizations, and unfortunately not often appropriately.

Perhaps this is the true cause of your angst..

You could perform an experiment for a few days and refuse to label anyone anymore and see if your mood changes.

 

TTT,

It is my belief also that you cannot actually become an executive member of Greenpeace...it is a closed shop......do you have any thoughts on this?

 

Jim , you are correct in thinking i am not too interested in the technical minutiae. As this thread amply demonstrates it seems to go on forever with no agreements in sight. So i'm looking to see where we can get to by using a different approach.

Although your answer is closer to what i was asking it is still not quite it.

I'm asking what makes you believe the sources of the information that you use to arrive at your particular conclusions?

An extra question would be , because in all this warming/cooling discussion i am still not sure of your point of view in this respect, and that is do you think it is of no consequence what humans do to the earth?

 

Landlubber, i have no idea, and i have no particular interest in Greenpeace.

 

Sorry TTT, should have addressed the letter to Jimbo......

 

TTT,

It comes down to consequences and credibility. What are the consequences if one side or the other 'wins' and what have the two sides done to bolster or alternatively destroy their mantle of scientific impartiality and therefore, their credibility.

The warmers side has at stake the establishment of absolutely unprecedented government power, the power to tax and regulate every single detail of everyone's life globally. This is the gist of the 'solution' they are advocating. This will amount to the greatest transfer (centralization) of power and wealth in human history. And the very entities in charge of promoting the idea of climate alarm are the same ones that will be the beneficiaries of this transfer. YOU SHOULD BE ALARMED BY THIS!!

So the 'consequences' side of the argument stacks against the alarmists, as they have great motive to 'win', which is the insatiable human greed for power.

The 'Climate Realists' have only to gain the prevention of such a transfer of power and wealth. No new wealth or power will accumulate to their (ours, yours and mine) side. If their side 'wins', power and wealth will remain de-centralized, accessible to the many.


Not surprisingly, the climate alarmists have consistently behaved in highly unethical ways, totally unbecoming a scientific discussion. Throughout the thread, especially in the earlier pages, I documented much of the sloppy at best, but more than likely fraudulent 'science' the alarmists have pushed on the public to support their 'cause'. And their side never finds these frauds out; their side cannot seem to self-correct. It's always the Realists who correct them.

You cannot resolve a technical question with a sociological/philosophical discussion; you MUST address science, the technicalities. Since the science CLEARLY now breaks against the Alarmist camp, they have begun to resort to calling this a 'philosophical' question. Before the science was so resolved and there were still many unknowns, the Alarmists had said that this should be a purely scientific discussion. This again assaults their credibility.


Jimbo

 

Jimbo,

Since you do not want to directly answer my 'philosophical' questions, and you appear informed maybe i can ask a series of simple science questions which i'm sure will be of benefit to not just me but also many other readers.

1- What would happen to the earth's atmospheric composition if all life where to suddenly vanish, and why?

2- Where did the carbon atoms that make up petroleum deposits originally come from?

(No need to go as far back as formation of the solar system here!)