The Myth of Global Warming?

[York99]

Global warming is a hot topic recently (no pun intended, but deeeeeelicious!), especially with Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Plus it seems that every reputable scientist qualified to speak about the subject has stated that it should be a concern.

The Sean Hannity response is to talk about how the reverse was true in the 1970s. All the scientists were worried that the earth was freezing at an alarming rate and we were heading toward an ice age. The arguement continues that, like then, this is now a bunch of hype created by groups that can profit from the scare in various ways.

I tend to side with experts, but I'm always looking for a good conspiracy. Plus, truth generally lies somewhere between (or shared amongst) the left and the right.

Other than the scientists who are flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a see-saw (groan), what is the counter arguement to Alan Colmes' better half?

[note: I do not stand to gain or lose either way; I'm just seeking the truth.]

[nadine]

frankly, i don't care if global warming is caused by humans (which i believe), or is part of the natural cycle.

it's just getting too damn hot.

and it costs a lot of money to turn on the AC in the summer.

also, i like to go outdoors, and go kayaking, and when i travel, i listen to old-timers say how the environment is getting worse, less trees, less water, less fish. how the rogue riverbed has too much overgrown moss in there because of fertilizers from the golf courses.. so the salmon swimming upstream to lay their eggs can't find the rock beds they need. so there's less salmon.

the coral reef dying out.

the entire frog species dying out.

all brown ugly smelly hot moldy fungusy.

who cares what caused it?!

the environment needs some TLC right now.

[York99]

who cares what caused it?!

the environment needs some TLC right now.

What if it doesn't, though? What if this is just one more cycle of the world and nothing we do can help it and nothing we did caused it?

I don't believe this necessarily, but it's a valid argument.

[deroosisonfire]

Nothing "needs" to be saved in a philosophical sense. Since there was life on this planet there have been lineages that survived and lineages that died out.

Things "need" to be saved because humans like them a certain way. We "need" clean air because we'd all rather breathe without using a mask and oxygen tank all the time.

I don't know if you've noticed, Justin, but very few experts use the term "global warming" these days - they say "global climate change." This term seems to mean pretty much the same thing, but the public is more comfortable with it.

[nadine]

I don't know if you've noticed, Justin, but very few experts use the term "global warming" these days - they say "global climate change." This term seems to mean pretty much the same thing, but the public is more comfortable with it.

I was reading Harpers or Atlantic Monthly@BookPeople, and not everyone is unhappy about it. The folks leaving in Greenland are happy that they've more weeks for crops. Russia, and Buffulo, NY could become prime real estate.

[Wesley]

who cares what caused it?!
the environment needs some TLC right now.

It matters what is causing it if we want to "fix" it. If the sun or some other natural system is causing it, it doesn't matter how much TLC we give it.

Like Christina said, we simply tend to take a very humanistic view of the thing. We adapted to the planet as it is now and we want it to stay that way regardless of if we or nature are changing it. Were we to all disappear tomorrow, this planet, life and all, would go on just fine without us.

We are no where near the historic highs on Earth millions of years ago, nor the historic lows. We are so bold and cocky to think in a few short decades we can decode, predict, and manipulate natural cycles that unfold over thousands and millions of years. Maybe we've started something, but maybe Earth does this herself (for example, there is some emerging proof of warming on other planets which may in fact indicate a greater energy release from the sun in addition to other factors).

Should we reduce our pollution for a number of other reasons and find alternative fuel sources. Sure. But I don't know if doing so will have jack to do with the greater environment.

[kbadr]

...Buffulo, NY could become prime real estate.

It'll take a little more than a few more weeks of summer to make Buffalo a desirable place to live...

[shando]

Other than the scientists who are flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a see-saw (groan),

Who? What scientists?

[nadine]

It matters what is causing it if we want to "fix" it. If the sun or some other natural system is causing it, it doesn't matter how much TLC we give it.

CO2 is rising. CO2 rising correlates with temperature rising. Since we emit so much CO2, then we should reduce CO2 emission, whether or not there are mysterious natural sources of C02.

Like Christina said, we simply tend to take a very humanistic view of the thing. We adapted to the planet as it is now and we want it to stay that way regardless of if we or nature are changing it.

Well obviously we're going to take a humanistic view. What other view should we take? I like Earth to be nice and green, with running rivers, large pine covered mountains, and toilets.

We are no where near the historic highs on Earth millions of years ago, nor the historic lows.

Really? I thought we were. Can you give a reference for this and educate me? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious.

Should we reduce our pollution for a number of other reasons and find alternative fuel sources. Sure. But I don't know if doing so will have jack to do with the greater environment.

It will.

Do you think, that humans can just create chemicals, release toxins in the air, and we're talking about mass mass quantities of pollution. And not have it effect the environment? Of course it effects it.

I don't want to wait 4 more generations to see whether or not the Global Climate Change is true or false. It's like people who continue to eat fast food, sugar, processed refined flour, chemically enhanced food, because the FDA doesn't think they're going to kill you. I don't want to wait until it's proven that it is bad for you.

[arclight]

Other than the scientists who are flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a see-saw (groan),

Who? What scientists?

Changing one's position based on new evidence is not 'flip-flopping', it's a critical part of the scientific method, something that eludes the superstitious and the ignorant.

But as Shannon asks, what scientists? Where is the substantial disagreement on this issue, the peer-reviewed papers? Where is the evidence?

[shando]

Changing one's position based on new evidence is not 'flip-flopping', it's a critical part of the scientific method, something that eludes the superstitious and the ignorant.

Word, Bob. I was just going to write that.

Furthermore, I find online "debates" like this tedious. Very few of us on this board even remotely have the scientific training to independently analyze the publications from a place like this: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So we can all go over there and look around, but unless you actually understand the science of climatology better than at a cocktail party level (and from where I sit Christina's the only one on this board who qualifies as an even remotely credentialled scientist, albeit not in the field of climate study--please correct me if I'm missing any of you), you're going accept the assertion presented there on a faith level. Or you're going to shrug it off at faith level. Personally, given my own philosophies, I trust scientists from an international panel when they say things like this:

[url=http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... Cr1=change]The IPCC, which brings together the world’s leading climate scientists and experts, concluded that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidenceâ€

[York99]

Other than the scientists who are flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a see-saw (groan),

Who? What scientists?

Changing one's position based on new evidence is not 'flip-flopping', it's a critical part of the scientific method, something that eludes the superstitious and the ignorant.

But as Shannon asks, what scientists? Where is the substantial disagreement on this issue, the peer-reviewed papers? Where is the evidence?

This is hilarious to me. Y'all are getting up in my face about something I'm just trying to find the truth about... without taking a stance either way, for the sake of this post anyway.

I meant scientists as a whole... perhaps 'scientific community' would have been a better phrase. As I mentioned, the scientists of the 70's said we are heading for an ice age. The scientists today say we are heading for a full global meltdown of all ice bergs, GI Joe figures and concious (ok, just a bit o' global warming or the new term global climate change). I wasn't around much in the 70s and I don't know much about the truth in this topic, so that's what I'm trying to discover.

What I'm saying is that there is a valid point (or so it seems) from the Hannity crowd (you know who you are) that for the scientific community to say that we are trending dangerously colder to trending dangerously warmer in just 30 years sounds a bit like crying wolf.

The challenge is to prove Hannity wrong to me. Again, I am fully disclosing that I know little about the subject and am simply trying to learn.

[arclight]

Should we reduce our pollution for a number of other reasons and find alternative fuel sources. Sure. But I don't know if doing so will have jack to do with the greater environment.

Let's use a little game theory on this. There are two positions, each with two alternatives: a) The earth's climate (is|is not) substantially affected by CO2 production from human activities, and b) We (reduce|don't reduce) CO2 production. If the climate is insensitive to CO2 production, it doesn't matter what we do. If it is, and we do nothing to reduce emissions, we reduce the habitibility of the planet for every living thing on or in it. If it is and we reduce emissions, we preserve the habitability of the planet.

Costs: if we reduce emissions whether it makes a difference, we spend money we could have used elsewhere (cure for cancer, pills for Limbaugh, whatever.) If the habitability of the planet changes, the game's over for a lot of people (the Low Countries, southern Florida, a bunch of islands, and probably a big chunk of east Texas and the Atchafalaya Basin for starters.) The costs of Doing Something are small in comparision to Doing Nothing.

The traditional model of risk considers both probability and consequences. With the present understanding of the earth's climate, the overwhelming conclusion is (e.g. there is a high probability) that climate is affected by CO2 production from human activities. This gives Doing Nothing a really shitty payout compared to Doing Something.

But going even further, the traditional model of risk is not complete - it doesn't factor in human perceptions and values, such as the controllability, scale, acute vs chronic doom, the 'creep factor' (burning to death or being buried alive are usually considered worse than dying peacefully in one's sleep.) Some people think they'd feel poorer in a world without polar bears or Key West or Amsterdam. Certainly the Dutch and Floridians would.

[nadine]

npr ran a debate on whether global warming is a crisis:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9082151

I'm going to hijack this thread for a moment to say.... save water

Austin was in a drought since mid-2005, and if it had continued we would have water rations.. but it rained hopefully it'll continue raining.

On conservation efforts.. we have the LCRA
the LCRA: lower colorado river authority
http://lcra.org/index.html

From the LCRA page:
Myth: To really make a difference, everyone must drastically reduce their water use.

Fact: Using just 10 percent less water will make a big difference. If everyone does their part, we can extend Central Texas and the Hill Country's water supply. And you don't even have to be a math wizard to figure out how. Just read your latest utility bill and note how many gallons you consumed. Then multiply the number of gallons by .10. For example, if you used 8,000 gallons, multiply 8,000 by .10. That equals 800 gallons and that's all you need to save in a month. You'll even have plenty leftover to brush your teeth and wash behind your ears. Austin Water Utility customers can view bills online by registering at www.COAUtilities.com. See sample LCRA water bill.link opens in a new browser window

Myth: If it rains, there is no need to save water.

Fact: While rainfall in Central Texas and the Hill Country supplements the Colorado River, it doesn’t eliminate the need to make our water supply last. For example, last summer was a wet one. If we all would have used 10 percent less water Lake Travis could be 2 to 3 foot higher today. When rain is scarce, the ground is dry and it acts like a sponge, absorbing rain and preventing crucial runoff into the river and lakes. It takes steady rainfall over a sustained period of time to catch up with a dry spell. Heavy rains over a short period of time do not solve the problem.

[shando]

The challenge is to prove Hannity wrong to me.

Why do we have to do all the heavy lifting here?
Shouldn't it be your job to prove Hannity right in the face of what people who are actually scientists have to say about this? Given some of his other difficult relationships with what might be described as objectivity, why should you or we take his word on something that he has no background in?