Global Warming, As A Religion

[BHS]

Black Dog included a statement in a different thread that I decided to reply to in an off-topic manner, and my threadjack became so long that I decided it would be better to start a different thread rather than interrupt that discussion. So here goes:

Blackdog:

I'm really sick of all these faith-based theories. This is a good example: we're told that pulling out the U.S. troops would be a horrible mistake. But we're not told why.

You mean, faith-based theories like global climate change "experts" find human activity to be a primary underlying cause of global warming? Keeping in mind that the "experts" are merely the fellows who claim to be experts. And based on that claim and some alarming chatter they've managed to talk gullible government types into funding their largely meaningless computer simulations that by the very nature of their construction can't be correct. Unless you think that a bunch of computer geeks with Green party memberships know every single variable in the most complex system of physical interactions that's ever been studied.

Just a single example: the variations of the magnetic fields generated by the earth's core, which directly effect how much solar radiation makes it to the planet's surface, aren't addressed at all. Perhaps they're assumed to gravitate toward a relatively constant mean over time measured in years (as opposed to geological time), but that assumption would be based on absolutely no evidence.

It's simple: even if all of the scientists in the world share the same opinion about the cause and direction of climate change, that concensus doesn't make their opinion any more valid. Insinuating that their shared belief is hard fact is crossing the line from scientific concensus (which has an unreliable track record anyway) to religion.

[PocketRocket]

BHS:

Interesting post, but if you want to make it complete you must also look at the other side of the coin which would be "Doubt of scientific theory as a religion".

History shows numerous examples of scientific theory being doubted, nay, scoffed at, by the powers that be at nearly every juncture.

Shape of the Earth??? Well, EVERYONE knows that it's flat, and that if you sail too far beyond sight from land you'll fall off the edge.

The Sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of the universe.

Things called germs, too tiny to see, cause disease??? Nonsense.

It was a well-known fact for centuries that the stars foretell our fates.

Or chicken entrails, or tea leaves. You name it.

Hey, how about witches??? Do they sink or float???

Do leeches really get rid of disease??? They must as they were used by "medical men" for centuries.

"Man will never fly". The Wright brothers took a lot of ribbing before their first successful flight.

Pictures being sent throught the ether??? Nonsense.

And yet, we have television today.

And computers, and airplanes, rockets, space shuttles, microbiology, radiation, etc etc etc.

If all the "pish-poshers" in history had their way, we'd still all be huddled around a fire to keep warm.

The examples of conservative (I use the term literally here, not as a representation of current political alliances) thinking people saying "pish-posh" to any and all "new" or progressive thoughts on how the world around us works are too numerous to list in one place.

This is happening again with global warming.

Is it a proven fact????

Depends on who you ask.

But my take on global warming is simple.

I don't know for sure. Neither do you.

But given that the planet is such a huge mechanism, and that anything we pour into her atmosphere can take anywhere from years to decades to show its full effects, my attitude is simple; why take a chance???

If we can reduce our emissions of "greenhouse gases", it can only be a good thing.

Why???

Because even if global warming is just a bogie-man that a bunch of science geeks (as you term them) dreamed up, it can STILL only be a good thing to reduce the amount of gases we are emitting simply because if nothinbg else, we may be pouring more crap into the atmosphere than the Earth is capable of absorbing and correcting on her own.

Any ecosystem can be poisoned if you pour enough crap into it.

When you're driving a car and someone says "there's a sheer drop ahead", you slow down NOW, not after you've reached the brink and it's too late.

If it ends up that there's no cliff after all, you can always speed up again.

[BHS]

PockeRocket:

I'd love nothing better than if a perfectly clean and cheap method of producing sufficient quantities electrical and mechanical energy were discovered tomorrow. I'd love almost as much if we discovered new ways of making dirty energy sources cleaner. But of course - who wants to live in a dirty environment? I'm all for the government pouring the money they currently piss away on gun registries and advertising themselves to Quebecers into clean energy research.

But

- Using unprovable theories about impending environmental catastrophe, that in every way resemble the apocolyptic ramblings of a religious text, is an unsound basis for changes in public policy (not to mention an ironic violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state, as the Left currently understands the meaning of that principle, judging by their attacks on public displays of religious belief)

- An international agreement that purports to address the problem by setting arbitrary emissions targets and establishing a pollution credit trading scheme that benefits those countries that are historically (in the case of the former USSR countries) and currently (in the case of Southeast Asia) the worst polluters is doomed to failure

It's a simple fact that democratic, capitalist countries with the highest standards of living also have the cleanest environments and are doing the most to address the pollution issue. Wealth and freedom are the solution to pollution. Letting the issue be co-opted by undemocratic international agencies and NGOs who are aggressively anti-globalist and anti-capitalist is exactly the wrong direction to take.

You asked, "Is it a proven fact?" and then answered yourself "Depends on who you ask." I'll restate that my opinion is that it is NOT a proven fact regardless of who you ask.

FYI, it was computer geeks, not science geeks.

[PocketRocket]

PockeRocket:

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket".

That's about my speed in the morning

I'd love nothing better than if a perfectly clean and cheap method of producing sufficient quantities electrical and mechanical energy were discovered tomorrow. I'd love almost as much if we discovered new ways of making dirty energy sources cleaner. But of course - who wants to live in a dirty environment? I'm all for the government pouring the money they currently piss away on gun registries and advertising themselves to Quebecers into clean energy research.

Several such alternatives already exist, but they are not being exploited. In another thread some time ago, I pointed out windpower, among several other alternatives.

Cheap. Clean. And an inexhaustable supply of FREE power.

Hell, if they could erect a windmill inside the House of Commons, that alone could power half the country

- Using unprovable theories about impending environmental catastrophe, that in every way resemble the apocolyptic ramblings of a religious text, is an unsound basis for changes in public policy (not to mention an ironic violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state, as the Left currently understands the meaning of that principle, judging by their attacks on public displays of religious belief)

The problem here is that a theory is ALWAYS unprovable, until it's been proven.

This particular theory, if we wait until it IS proven, could turn out to be disastrous, perhaps fatally so, for a large portion of the planet's population.

A rather large currency with which to gamble.

- An international agreement that purports to address the problem by setting arbitrary emissions targets and establishing a pollution credit trading scheme that benefits those countries that are historically (in the case of the former USSR countries) and currently (in the case of Southeast Asia) the worst polluters is doomed to failure

I believe you speak here of Kyoto.

A very imperfect step. Not a solution at all, really, but at least a step.

It's a simple fact that democratic, capitalist countries with the highest standards of living also have the cleanest environments and are doing the most to address the pollution issue. Wealth and freedom are the solution to pollution. Letting the issue be co-opted by undemocratic international agencies and NGOs who are aggressively anti-globalist and anti-capitalist is exactly the wrong direction to take.

And yet the same wealth and freedom lead to people driving Hummers to the grocery store. To the salon. To the gym.

Unfortunately, within a wealthy society, you will always find a significant segment who are more concerned with ostentatious displays of thier personal wealth that they are with environment, or with common sense for that matter.

You asked, "Is it a proven fact?" and then answered yourself "Depends on who you ask." I'll restate that my opinion is that it is NOT a proven fact regardless of who you ask.

And your opinion is correct.

As is mine: that if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's proven fact.

Just as if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's complete and total bunk.

Not enough evidence in yet to prove or disprove either side of the argument.

But in your case, even though you argue that it is not proven, you at least acknowledge the fact that it is POSSIBLE, even if only remotely so.

Admirable. Always good to keep an open mind.

FYI, it was computer geeks, not science geeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry. My mistake. I stand, (or rather sit, geekily at my computer ) corrected.

[BHS]

PockeRocket:

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket".

That's about my speed in the morning

My apologies, PocketRocket. I'm still in morning mode myself.

Several such alternatives already exist, but they are not being exploited. In another thread some time ago, I pointed out windpower, among several other alternatives.

Cheap. Clean. And an inexhaustable supply of FREE power.

Hell, if they could erect a windmill inside the House of Commons, that alone could power half the country

The keyword from my post was the qualifier "sufficient" which is why I specifically included it. Solar and wind power are good alternative energy sources, but they don't supply nearly enough energy and are inherently undependable. There are other problems to consider. Solar cells are clean while in use, but they have a limited lifespan and the materials they are made of are toxic, which need to be dealt with when they are no longer in service. Windmills are expensive to build and maintain (not cheap) and have a nasty habit of killing birds. Not to mention that they're an eyesore and take up huge amounts of land.

The problem here is that a theory is ALWAYS unprovable, until it's been proven.

This particular theory, if we wait until it IS proven, could turn out to be disastrous, perhaps fatally so, for a large portion of the planet's population.

A rather large currency with which to gamble.

There's a difference between uproven and unprovable. For instance, aspects of physics predicted within General Relativety were unproven until experiments were devised to prove them. Other aspects of quantum mechanics remain unproven, until

suitable experiments are devised to provide the proof. But these are small, relatively easy to control sets of actions and reactions.

If an oil refinery fire in Texas produced a solid week of warm rain in Toronto every time that would be proof. But of course nothing like that happens in the real world.

My conjecture is that it is beyond the scope of human ability to reliably predict how global climate will change from year to year and decade to decade. There are too many unknown variables. Thus there is no way of predicting how human interaction with the environment affects climate change.

I don't consider our current public policies or lifestyle to be gambling with the environment.

I believe you speak here of Kyoto.

A very imperfect step. Not a solution at all, really, but at least a step.

I understand your point and the goodness of your intention, but if good intentions were all that mattered we'd live in a perfect Utopia. A step in the wrong direction is not an improvement. I'm not saying that I have a better solution. I'm saying I don't think a better solution is required.

And yet the same wealth and freedom lead to people driving Hummers to the grocery store. To the salon. To the gym.

Unfortunately, within a wealthy society, you will always find a significant segment who are more concerned with ostentatious displays of thier personal wealth that they are with environment, or with common sense for that matter.

You have to swallow the man-made climate change theory hook, line and sinker to believe that a Hummer is worse than a moped. And I don't.

And in my experience, the most ludicrous, reckless, ostentatious displays of wealth are to be found in the most horribly impoverished countries, where leaders spend international loans on new jets for their harems while ordinary citizens starve a few hundred feet away. Bill Gates has more money than Robert Mugabe could ever dream of, but which of them do you think owns the most and biggest vehicles? Who do you think cares more and has spent more of his own money on the people and environment in Zimbabwe?

And your opinion is correct.

As is mine: that if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's proven fact.

Just as if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's complete and total bunk.

Not enough evidence in yet to prove or disprove either side of the argument.

But in your case, even though you argue that it is not proven, you at least acknowledge the fact that it is POSSIBLE, even if only remotely so.

Admirable. Always good to keep an open mind..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the good discussion. This has been a fun thread.

[sharkman]

This topic has been a pet peeve of mine. For instance, as soon as Katrina hit, many in the media started THE END IS NEAR UNLESS WE EMBRACE ENVIRONMENTALISM rant, showing how we've had so many killer storms this year and it's PROOF THAT WE'RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH!

As soon as some actually started looking into it they discovered that, lo and behold, back in the mid 1930s, there was also a year when there were as many category 5 storms. The late 60swere bad too. Which kind of blows the whole warming climate change thing out of the water. Since back in the 30s there wasn't 1/10th of the cars and industry on planet earth that there is today. It seems the oceans warm up and cool down based on cycles of 30 years or something.

Anywhoo, there's a good novel that explores this topic. Michael Crichton did a lot of research and cites many studies in this work that shows some of the ugly side to the environmentalism. I know it's only a novel, but he really researches his topic well and it refers to studies which disagree with the tree huggers and these people get shunned and worse for disrespecting the religion of mother earth.

[Guest eureka]

Are you the "very model of a modern Major General," BHS. Do you know the "scientific names of every animalculus?"

Your little lesson on magnetism is a bit Gilbert and Sullivan-ish.

Apparently, you have come up with something that the whole world scientific community has missed. How clever of you. Of course, all those climatologists and related disciplines, would never have thought of investigating solar radiation. It was to be your claim to fame. Interesting that you call the scientists from every discilpline "computer geeks>" Has it not occurred to you that the great majority of the scientists who have weighed the evidence would have no more familiarity with computers than you or I.

There is nothing that has been missed. There is no longer anything that is questionable about the causes of climate change. There is no disagreement about it in the science communities anywhere. Only greed allied to stupidity and a callous unconcern for humanity still denies it.

[BHS]

eureka

Once again, blather and meaningless bollocks. You clearly don't know your head from the hole in the ground you stick it in. When are you going to give it up?

[Guest eureka]

Your stock reply, BHS. When your bluster is called, reply with more bluster.

You cannot produce a shred of evidence that says climate change is not happening or that the cause is not man. Not a shred because every body of scientists in the world says it is so.

[BHS]

eureka

I put you on my ignore list a while ago, but I periodically read your posts just to confirm my theory about the meaninglessness of what you write. After your penultimate post in this thread I decided to just ignore you completely. So I have no idea what you wrote in your last post.

You know, when you repeatedly imply that someone else is greedy and evil without any explanation other than their refusal to bow to your views, it tends to be a little off-putting. If the moderator were as serious about stopping ad hominem attacks as he periodically claims he is you would have been banned a long time ago. As would I, no doubt. (Heck, I'll admit I've said some pretty nasty stuff about other posters, mostly Black Dog. My only defence is that I try to keep it at a minimum, and I try to agree with him when I genuinely agree with what he's posted.) But if I were to get kicked out of the forum I'd at least have some comfort in the knowledge that I contributed a little bit of original thought, and made a few arguments that at least tried to persuade the other members.

Though you've managed to rack up more posts here than everyone except Argus, Black Dog and August, your writing is as stale and unconvincing as it was in your first post. And remember, I've gone through your posting history to confirm this.

I haven't quite decide yet, but I'm thinking of playing a little game from now on, where I follow up your posts with my own guess as to what you actually wrote (keeping in mind that I can't actually read your posts unless I specifically opt to read them, which I am henceforth unwilling to do - everyone has their limits). I'm thinking about calling this game "the tripe-o-meter".

I'm not going to even try to guess what your last post contained, because my insults probably sent you off on a rant to places I wouldn't hazard to guess about. But at least now you'll know what I'm up to, if you see it in the future. Enjoy.

[Guest eureka]

You are pathetic, BHS. Come back when you gather the "balls," to use one of your words, to back up what you assert.

Ignore lists are for losers.. And your last is the ultimate if you really mean what you say.

[sharkman]

Those in the environmentalism movement are very quick to attack the messenger, anyone who disagrees with their theories. To brow beat them into submission, if you will. But it doesn't help their case any.

[speaker]

the attacks do seem to go both ways but so far my impression is that the ones trying to put down Kyoto are the most obnoxious. I've heard a variety of times that there has been warming periods in the past and it bears repeating that we all recognize that this may not even be the most global warming to come along. The point of the Kyoto proponents is that even if there is a major climate shift occuring now without attributing green house gas emissions, .. There is human induced climate change being added to the problem.

So the fact there is natural climate change occuring is a real good reason to try our best to curb our own effect.

This has nothing to do with the big Belief, at least no more than advocates of wait and see are Believers in the information paid for by the major energy suppliers.

[BHS]

This has nothing to do with the big Belief,  at least no more than advocates of wait and see are Believers in the information paid for by the major energy suppliers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late.

On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary.

It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept.

[PocketRocket]

There is nothing that has been missed. There is no longer anything that is questionable about the causes of climate change. There is no disagreement about it in the science communities anywhere. Only greed allied to stupidity and a callous unconcern for humanity still denies it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, EUREKA, in other threads related to this topic in the past, links have been provided to dissenting opinions from scientists, so obviously there IS some disagreement in the "scientific community".

As to whether or not we consider those particular dissenters and the organizations that commisioned their "studies" and/or "opinions" to be imparial is another matter entirely.

So, as much as I personally believe that GW is MOST LIKELY an issue to be concerned about (thereby agreeing with you), I can also see how others can take the opposite viewpoint based onother information which is purported to come from science.

As someone stated earlier, attacking the meesenger does no good, and can only bring down the level of discourse.

[speaker]

This has nothing to do with the big Belief,  at least no more than advocates of wait and see are Believers in the information paid for by the major energy suppliers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late.

I'll change the word environmentalism to consumerism,

On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary.

again change the word environment for economy,

It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and finally change the word environmentalism for corporate/globalism.

big money copulation, yes?

[PocketRocket]

PockeRocket:

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket".

That's about my speed in the morning

My apologies, PocketRocket. I'm still in morning mode myself.

No apology necessary. Obviously just a typo, which is why I just poked a bit of fun.

The keyword from my post was the qualifier "sufficient" which is why I specifically included it. Solar and wind power are good alternative energy sources, but they don't supply nearly enough energy and are inherently undependable. There are other problems to consider. Solar cells are clean while in use, but they have a limited lifespan and the materials they are made of are toxic, which need to be dealt with when they are no longer in service. Windmills are expensive to build and maintain (not cheap) and have a nasty habit of killing birds. Not to mention that they're an eyesore and take up huge amounts of land.

If "sufficient" is the criterion, then we do not have a "sufficient" source of electricity at all!!!!

You seem to think I am infering that ALL power come from windmills.

Not so. Even today, we have hydro-generated power, nuclear-generated power, oil-fired-generated power. I don't believe we still have any coal-fire-generated power in Canada, but there are still a few (I believe) in the USA, and MANY abroad. So, there is no one single source which is "sufficient", but taken all together.....

What I was pointing out is that wind is FREE. And maintenance costs on windmills is actually quite cheap.

As to the birds, well, there's a way around any problem.

With the plethora of windmill designs available to choose from, I'm sure we could manage to spare the majority of birds out there.

In that other thread I spoke of, I mentioned a farmer in Northern Ontario who erected several windmills. They're actually quite pretty to see. They power his entire farm, and he apparently puts a bit of power into the grid.

His cows graze all around and beneath the 'mills, undismayed by their presence.

He was reported as saying the investment paid for itself in 7 years.

The birds generally seem unconcerned as well, as there are, apparently, more than a few nests built on these structures.

So yes, wind and sun may contribute in only a small way when each mill or solar generator is taken individually, but there is SO MUCH sun, and SO MUCH wind, and so many millions of acres where we could put these devices.

There's a difference between uproven and unprovable. For instance, aspects of physics predicted within General Relativety were unproven until experiments were devised to prove them. Other aspects of quantum mechanics remain unproven, until

suitable experiments are devised to provide the proof. But these are small, relatively easy to control sets of actions and reactions.

With advances in science coming at an ever-accelerating pace, what was "unprovable" yesterday is provable today, and what is unprovable today shall likely be provable tomorrow.

I believe you speak here of Kyoto.

A very imperfect step. Not a solution at all, really, but at least a step.

I understand your point and the goodness of your intention, but if good intentions were all that mattered we'd live in a perfect Utopia. A step in the wrong direction is not an improvement. I'm not saying that I have a better solution. I'm saying I don't think a better solution is required.

If we put aside global warming for a moment, and look simply at pollutants, we may see cause for some mild alarm.

While it may not be proven, at least to your satisfaction, that global warming is a threat, it has indeed been proven that the amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide/monoxide, and other "greenhouse gases" have risen dramatically in the past century, and very sharply in the past 35 years or so.

Considering the Earth's considerable yet limited ability to "clean" herself by recycling these gases through what is essentially a massive biological filter system, and the fact that this same filter system is being attacked relentlessly through clear-cutting of rainforests, among other things, and also taking into account the fact that the world economy is growing at such a pace that the outpouring of domestically-produced pollutants is rising more quickly than ever before, do you not see this as a cause for some alarm, even taken outside the context of possible global warming???

Rates of asthma occurence, for example, are higher now than they have ever been in the history of mankind.

This is attributed to higher level of pollutants which we are increasingly being forced to breather.

Global warming is only one facet of the atmospheric pollution problem.

How would you address the question of these other issues????

And yet the same wealth and freedom lead to people driving Hummers to the grocery store. To the salon. To the gym.

Unfortunately, within a wealthy society, you will always find a significant segment who are more concerned with ostentatious displays of thier personal wealth that they are with environment, or with common sense for that matter.

You have to swallow the man-made climate change theory hook, line and sinker to believe that a Hummer is worse than a moped. And I don't.

And in my experience, the most ludicrous, reckless, ostentatious displays of wealth are to be found in the most horribly impoverished countries, where leaders spend international loans on new jets for their harems while ordinary citizens starve a few hundred feet away. Bill Gates has more money than Robert Mugabe could ever dream of, but which of them do you think owns the most and biggest vehicles? Who do you think cares more and has spent more of his own money on the people and environment in Zimbabwe?

I would hardly compare the behaviour of despots to that of our supposedly more "civilised" citicens here at home.

As for my "Hummer" comment, it was meant to point out general foolishness.

This goes for the majority of people who own ANY kind of SUV.

Let's face it, how many "Sports Utility Vehicles" are actually used for the purpose for which they were designed; ie 4-wheel-drive-wilderness applications???

When you own an SUV, and you live in California, and you NEVER drive on anything but well-paved streets, well, that's simply foolishness.

Now, if we look at the reasons WHY these resources have not been exploited by government, I think it comes down to big-business economics.

As long as there are megabucks being generated (pun unintented, but apropos) by the use of fossil fuels in creating electricity, we won't soon see any major movement towards a more "green" approach.

There are simply too many dollars circulating, and as soon as any politician starts making noise about implementing such sources of power generation, lobby groups have/will get in the act to maintain teh status quo.

After all, if suddenly 1/3 of our electricity was to come from windmills, the oil companies would see a sudden drop in profits which have been heretofore virtually assured earnings.

As long as lobby groups have the kind of power they currently wield, we will not see any major changes soon.

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the good discussion. This has been a fun thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, pal, right back atcha.

And BTW, it ain't over yet

[Black Dog]

You mean, faith-based theories like global climate change "experts" find human activity to be a primary underlying cause of global warming?

Global warming is no more "faith-based" than evolution: that is, the scientific community's consensus is overwhelming.

But I see you concede that point.

It's simple: even if all of the scientists in the world share the same opinion about the cause and direction of climate change, that concensus doesn't make their opinion any more valid. Insinuating that their shared belief is hard fact is crossing the line from scientific concensus (which has an unreliable track record anyway) to religion.

Right. Far better to trust the opinions of the oil industry-backed global warming denial lobby and popcult "experts" like Michael Chricton.

I'll take my chances with the geeks.

[Leafless]

The biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect is 'water vapour' and this coincides with population growth associated with everything that creates water vapour from the automobile to boiling a kettle full of water even breathing which also greatly contributes to the 'smog' problem which in turn along with the sun magnifies the 'greenhouse effect.

We'll all end up choking to death yet- the globe just ain't big enough.

[Guest eureka]

I would like to know , Pocket, where those elements in the scientific community that dissent from thw world body of scientists are to be found. And I do believe in "shooting the messenger" when the messenger is a "Greek bearing gifts."

The dissent referenced in these discussions has been limited to a fraudulent petition; to a doctor/author, Crichton; to a statistician, Lomborg, seeking the "bubble reputation;" to a very few genuine scientists who have a personal interest. Oh, and to Dr. Fred Singer who has not published a per reviewed paper in twenty five years and is funded by the Moonies.

Dissent is little more than to seize on the "Hockey Stick" as junk science when the that measure is accepted by the whole scientific community. The Hockey Stick was a crude measure and its authors have agreed that there are flaws. However, it is no more flawed than a stock index is flawed as a measure of Market activity.

I have no patience at all with the nay sayers and I can hardly find the words to express my contempt for them. A decade or so ago, there was some reason to be doubtful - not certain of the dangers in climate change. There is none now. Recently, ice core samples have pushed back the measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere to 620,000 years. Never in that time, has the level been so high. Previous measures were 420,000 years and a precise correlation was found between C02 levels and temperature.

I have written in other threads of coral reefs that are massively dying: that all will die with a further increase in ocean temperarures of about 11/2 degrees C. I have written of the increasing desertification of the world's wetlands of which more than 70% have degraded in the past thirty years.

There is a distinct possibilty of the Atlantic Conveyor current collapsing and Northerm Europe turning into Siberia. That is possible beacuse of the decreasing salinity of the North Atlantic as Ice cap melt leads to greater volumes of fresh water diluting the present mix.

I have referenced the Pentagon's own study that warns of some of these things and of Global War as desperate peoples try to save themselves. There is no good end in sight according to that study.

And we are supposed to calmly sit back and discuss this with those who are sentencing their own children and grandchildren to a world condition too horrible to contemplate from a human standpoint.

The real consensus of scientists as given only recently in the Conference in England; the agreement of every one of the thousands of scientists who attended, is that it is too late to reverse the effects: that we still have time to slow them and perhaps to prevent the total disaster that could face us. We still have time to adapt and, perhaps, through technological advances, cope not flourish.

But it needs action now and every day under George Bush and co. makes the future scenario more grim.

[sharkman]

This topic has been a pet peeve of mine.  For instance, as soon as Katrina hit, many in the media started THE END IS NEAR UNLESS WE EMBRACE ENVIRONMENTALISM rant, showing how we've had so many killer storms this year and it's PROOF THAT WE'RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH!

As soon as some actually started looking into it they discovered that, lo and behold, back in the mid 1930s, there was also a year when there were as many category 5 storms. The late 60swere bad too.  Which kind of blows the whole warming climate change thing out of the water.  Since back in the 30s there wasn't 1/10th of the cars and industry on planet earth that there is today.  It seems the oceans warm up and cool down based on cycles of 30 years or something. 

Anywhoo, there's a good novel that explores this topic.  Michael Crichton did  a lot of research and cites many studies in this work that shows some of the ugly side to the environmentalism.  I know it's only a novel, but he really researches his topic well and it refers to studies which disagree with the tree huggers and these people get shunned and worse for disrespecting the religion of mother earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a note to those who wrongly think I was using M. Crichton as a source debunking environmentalism. In this post I was preaching to the choir, not trying to convince those in the environmentalism movement of anything. I find that in most cases, no matter how many sources one has regarding just about anything, they are discounted immediately, so only on some occasions do I bother. And it really is a good read.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

I don't believe we still have any coal-fire-generated power in Canada,

from...

http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/Pollut...F53482-1_En.htm

Of the total electricity generated in Canada, approximately 17% (120 million megawatt hours) is from the combustion of coal and oil. Current generating capacity of coal- and oil-fired power plants is about 24,700 megawatts. These plants comprise steam electric plants (boilers), combustion turbines and internal combustion engines. Coal-fired boilers account for 70% of the capacity in this category of plants.

As to the US, from...

http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=COAL

Coal is one of the true measures of the energy strength of the  United States.  One quarter of the world’s coal reserves are found within the United States, and the energy content of the nation’s coal resources exceeds that of all the world’s known recoverable oil.  Coal is also the workhorse of the nation’s electric power industry, supplying more than half the electricity consumed by Americans.

Still, some gov'ts seem to be moving away from 'high pollution' power generation, but some people still think that the earth is invincible.

[Guest eureka]

Lord May, now retiring as the British Goverment's chief scientist (whatever the position is called) has just said that the entire US Gulf Coast will probably be uninhabitable by the end of the century as a consequence of the developing extreme weather patterns.

Perhaps that was why Bush was in no particular hurry to do something about Katrina. Why save it or rebuild when it is going to be a Ghost Town anyway.

[BHS]

This has nothing to do with the big Belief,  at least no more than advocates of wait and see are Believers in the information paid for by the major energy suppliers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting comparison. On the one hand, you have people suggesting that human error is the source of a blight on the world, and suggest that humanity rise up in the spirit of self-purification to take action to correct the problem, or face terrible consequences. There is no proof to back up this belief, other than the concensus of self-appointed experts of environmentalism that this theory is correct and the punishment for inaction is unavoidable, if in fact it isn't already too late.

I'll change the word environmentalism to consumerism,

On the other hand, you have the view that the position we are already taking to protect the environment is rational and sufficient and more drastic action to ward off an unlikely doomsday scenario isn't necessary.

again change the word environment for economy,

It's interesting how you tie the two sides together, by placing the unbelievers in cahoots with or in thrall to the evil-doers. It's a nice touch, and perfectly in keeping with the environmentalism as religion concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and finally change the word environmentalism for corporate/globalism.

big money copulation, yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting, but I disagree. There are two very different approaches to problem solving being compared here.

People who favour Kyoto are advocating massive government interference in the private behaviours and preferences of individual consumers. Kyoto is an agreement created in a top-down fashion that purorts to have identified the cause for a problem and assumes it can be fixed by government regulation. There is no evidence that the problem exists, and in any case Kyoto was not designed to be a solution, but rather the first step toward a series of more and more intrusive international regulations. (Say, who're the globalists here?)

People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision. While this approach isn't as sexy as big, save-the-world international hug festivals for jet-setting politicos and their NGO counterparts, it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

[BHS]

You mean, faith-based theories like global climate change "experts" find human activity to be a primary underlying cause of global warming?

Global warming is no more "faith-based" than evolution: that is, the scientific community's consensus is overwhelming.

But I see you concede that point.

It's simple: even if all of the scientists in the world share the same opinion about the cause and direction of climate change, that concensus doesn't make their opinion any more valid. Insinuating that their shared belief is hard fact is crossing the line from scientific concensus (which has an unreliable track record anyway) to religion.

Right. Far better to trust the opinions of the oil industry-backed global warming denial lobby and popcult "experts" like Michael Chricton.

I'll take my chances with the geeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. You'll actually be taking your chances with the status quo. Kyoto was never intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the case can be made that even if Kyoto were fully implemented, polluting industries would just move to countries not required to comply. As such, the argument can and has been made that it's really a wealth redistribution scheme masquerading as environmental protectionism. Besides which, neither Kyoto or it's proposed successors look likely to ever be fully implemented.

Part of the "faithful" nature of the environmental movement is it's faith in government regulation being the ultimate solution to all of life's problems, but that's almost a topic for another thread.