The Myth of Global Warming?

[ratliff]

Plus, truth generally lies somewhere between (or shared amongst) the left and the right.

This is the kind of thinking that led to that compromise that counted a black American as 3/4 of a white American. (Somebody help me with this; was this part of the Missouri Compromise?)

Finding the middle sometimes makes sense with political topics like health care, because there is no objective truth, just differing views on the best ways to achieve differing goals.

But global warming is not a political position. It's a fact that is either true or not. If it's not true, applying half measures is a waste of valuable resources. If it's true, applying half measures is a waste of valuable resources. Saying we should split the difference is like a jury not being able to decide whether a guy is Son of Sam and giving him five years as a compromise.

[beardedlamb]

This is the kind of thinking that led to that compromise that counted a black American as 3/4 of a white American. (Somebody help me with this; was this part of the Missouri Compromise?)

oh, but you're being too generous, ratliff, it was actually 3/5. that's all i remember, just the name, the 3/5 Compromise.

[shando]

This is the kind of thinking that led to that compromise that counted a black American as 3/4 of a white American. (Somebody help me with this; was this part of the Missouri Compromise?)

It was the 3/5 clause, and it was written into the Constitution in 1787. As a compromise to hold the Union together before it had even officially formed, the dicey subject of slavery's impact on census figures (and thus apportionment of Congressional seats and Electoral Votes) was settled by counting each slave (or "other persons" as it was written) as .60 of person. Here's the irony though when people talk about the 3/5 compromise: people opposed to slavery wanted blacks to count as zero, while slave owners wanted them to count as 1 (more votes for the slave owners, don't you know). Gary Wills's book called something like "Jefferson: The Negro President" talks about how Jefferson beat Adams in the election of 1800 essentially by the excess electoral votes given to the South because of the 3/5 clause. I could bore you to death with this stuff.

Also, the Missouri Compromise was in 1820 (Jeffeson and Adams were still alive!) and it brought Missouri into the Union as a slave state while Maine was shaved off of Massachussets and entered as a free state. The Missouri Compromise was the second federal law overturned by the Supreme Court in the infamous Dredd Scott decision of 1857. Man, I'm a nerd.

[York99]

This is the kind of thinking that led to that compromise that counted a black American as 3/4 of a white American. (Somebody help me with this; was this part of the Missouri Compromise?)

oh, but you're being too generous, ratliff, it was actually 3/5. that's all i remember, just the name, the 3/5 Compromise.

3/5 Compromise is the name of our troupe when it's just Jastroch, Chris and me.

[ratliff]

Also, this is one of those conservative arguments that's really selective. Why has Hannity not applied this rigorous insistence on corroboration, proof, and ironclad evidence to

1) the idea of invading Iraq
2) the idea that tax cuts help everybody
3) the idea that private industry is always more efficient than government,
or
4) the idea that 9/11 turned a callow fratboy into Teddy Roosevelt?

Because that's not the team he's on, that's why. (And yes, liberals are just as selective and pigheaded about their pet issues.)

I don't feel obligated to take selective skepticism very seriously. As Jon Stewart has pointed out, what Hannity does is not journalism, it's theater. And I like theater. But I don't spend a lot of time developing my arguments against Iago's political philosophy.

[York99]

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?

Again, I AM NOT TAKING HANNITY'S OR ANYONE ELSE'S POSITION. However, "why do we have to do all the heavy lifting here?" is answered by this "because the people taking the position of global warming or whatever you want to call it are asking other people to do actual heavy lifting and drastic changing." If you strongly take that stance, you sure as fuck better be able to explain it under heavy scrutiny if you're trying to convince the US government, state and local governments, foreign governments, corporations and individuals to make big moves and take, in some case, gigantic financial hits to back these claims.

As for Hannity, I use him only as an example of someone on that side of the argument. He's a spokesperson, that's all.

You can attack me all you want (although I still have no idea why anyone would attack me for simply asking a question to try and gain knowledge) but if you want me or others like me to be on your side -- or at least not in opposition -- it's better to answer the questions than to call me a stupid flat-earth-lover for asking.

Honestly I wasn't all that skeptical about global warming before this thread, but the lack of any kind of satisfying response from a group of very literate and socially aware people makes me think that Hannity might be on to something after all. Maybe it's just a cause that people want to hang their hat on simply because Democrats tell us to do so or Republicans tell us not to. If that sounds absurd, check this out: http://www.grasstopsusa.com/videoh2o.html

Man, I love mixin' it up on the forums!

[nadine]

Honestly I wasn't all that skeptical about global warming before this thread, but the lack of any kind of satisfying response from a group of very literate and socially aware people makes me think that Hannity might be on to something after all.

What exactly is the kind of response you want?

Shannon posted a link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm
It was set up by the World Meteorological Org and the United Nations Environment PRogramme.

I can copy and paste some of the results of those leading scientists from over 130 countries and 2500+ scientific expert reviewers. But if you're really curious, and not just out to stir a flame war or trolling, then you'd go out there, read it, and educate yourself.

If you want a more condensed version read wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergover ... ate_Change

Climate change and conservationism is a dear and important issue to a lot of people. And I don't think you should make up your mind just based on an improv forum or how people who believe it treat you. That's just childish.

Anyway, what the heck. Here, I'll copy and paste part of the wikipedia article for you. The results of the IPCC Feb 2007 study:

# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
# Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
# Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]
# The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%
# World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:

* Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]
* It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
* It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

# Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
# Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

[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?

Again, I AM NOT TAKING HANNITY'S OR ANYONE ELSE'S POSITION. However, "why do we have to do all the heavy lifting here?" is answered by this "because the people taking the position of global warming or whatever you want to call it are asking other people to do actual heavy lifting and drastic changing." If you strongly take that stance, you sure as fuck better be able to explain it under heavy scrutiny if you're trying to convince the US government, state and local governments, foreign governments, corporations and individuals to make big moves and take, in some case, gigantic financial hits to back these claims.

As for Hannity, I use him only as an example of someone on that side of the argument. He's a spokesperson, that's all.

You can attack me all you want (although I still have no idea why anyone would attack me for simply asking a question to try and gain knowledge) but if you want me or others like me to be on your side -- or at least not in opposition -- it's better to answer the questions than to call me a stupid flat-earth-lover for asking.

Honestly I wasn't all that skeptical about global warming before this thread, but the lack of any kind of satisfying response from a group of very literate and socially aware people makes me think that Hannity might be on to something after all. Maybe it's just a cause that people want to hang their hat on simply because Democrats tell us to do so or Republicans tell us not to. If that sounds absurd, check this out: http://www.grasstopsusa.com/videoh2o.html

Man, I love mixin' it up on the forums!

Dude, no one is attacking you. For reals. And second, like I said, go check out the IPCC site. It's really as simple as this: This year, for the first time, after much caution on their part, scientists from around the world, experts in the field of climate change, have taken the equivacation out of their assertions that human activities are responsible for discernible and rapid changes in the earth's climate. You can go take a look at it. 99.99999 of what they say you won't have the training to understand. Neither do I, nor does anyone else here. What you make of that is what you make of that. But don't say that no one has given you a satisfying repsonse.

Or to put it another way, what standards, Justin, are you going to hold the information that's recommended to you from this thread? How are you going to sift through what's bogus and what's not? That's a real question I'm asking.

[ratliff]

Okay, fair enough. Justin, here's why I believe in global warming:

1) It's based on a premise I find believable, namely that human industrial activity has an effect on the environment.

2) It enjoys the support of the vast majority of the scientific community (by which I mean people whose primary paycheck is for doing science). I don't believe that scientists are always right, because I think their view of the universe is hopelessly skewed towards the observable, the reproducible, and the material -- but for that very same reason, I tend to trust them when it comes to the observable, the reproducible, and the material.

3) I can think of very few ulterior motives for promoting the theory aside from personal aggrandizement, and once the vast majority of the scientific community agrees, you don't get much juice out of that.

4) I can think of many, many ulterior motives for denying its existence (political fallout, cost to industry, diminishment of quality of life, etc.). I don't think that something is true just because my traditional bad guys are in favor of it. But Occam's Razor tells me to look for the simplest explanation, and

Global warming = Threat to industry = Orchestrated attempt to deny global warming

is an equation that is perfectly congruent with my experiences with corporate America over the past couple of decades.

I should point out that I hope the minority view continues to make itself heard as long as it wants to. But again, this sort of overcautious approach -- "Let's not unroll the hose until we're ABSOLUTELY SURE the house is going to burn down" -- is completely unrealistic and untenable and (therefore) also completely at odds with the best traditions of American conservatism, which at one time claimed to value common sense.

If we can't do anything until we know everything, we can't do anything. Period.

[shando]

I heartily endorse everything Ratliff just posted.

[York99]

If I wanted to go do a bunch of research, I would have done it. I'm not writing a paper or making policy. I was looking for a pretty quick USA Today-style answer of opposition to the "global warming is a myth" side that I mentioned. I like to treat the forum as my little cocktail party.

Examples of answers that would have satisfied me (though I don't know if they would be correct):

-"When the Hannities claim that there were a bunch of scientists sending up the red flag in the 70s about an impending ice age, he was talking about a tiny minority of scientists who were commissioned by the cow fart lobby."

-"Science didn't exist 30 years ago."

-"The 70s was widely known as "The Opposite Decade.""

Again, I'm not doing any kind of project. Any convincing explanation from y'all would have sufficed because I trust you... and if you were wrong or lying, there would be no consequences.

[arclight]

However, "why do we have to do all the heavy lifting here?" is answered by this "because the people taking the position of global warming or whatever you want to call it are asking other people to do actual heavy lifting and drastic changing." If you strongly take that stance, you sure as fuck better be able to explain it under heavy scrutiny if you're trying to convince the US government, state and local governments, foreign governments, corporations and individuals to make big moves and take, in some case, gigantic financial hits to back these claims.

And that has been done. Anyone with the ability to publish relevant papers (i.e. "do science") has explained it over and over with no effect to the relevant policymakers, people like James "Dumb as A Goddamn Post" Inhofe.

But despite believing "The Flintstones" was a documentary, Inhofe is not dumb. He's well paid to be such an obdurate anus (see http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ ... cycle=2006 to see how much the coal, oil, and gas lobby pours into his coffers.) That's not cynicism or ad hominem attack - that's documented fact.

Wikipedia has an interesting line about another bit of contentious science - ozone depletion:

The consensus on ozone depletion was disputed mainly by vested economic and ideological interests, who spread the misconceptions that are discussed below.

Man, I love mixin' it up on the forums!

I don't. I would rather not be baited into attempting to dispel ignorance. I fucking hate that fraction of society - left, right, white, black, rich, poor - that bashes and misrepresents science and deludes people for some fleeting power or a quick buck, all the while reaping the benefits of science, technology, and education. Whether it's the late Carl Sagan and his 'nuclear winter' junk science, the NIMBY anti-corporate (and probably funded by the coal industry) anti-nuclear crybabies, or the Jesus/Petroleum/Coal/Republican let-the-planet-burn-because-I'm-leaving-in-the-Rapture cabal, as far as I'm concerned they can sit in the goddamned dark and die of cholera.

Science. It Works, Bitches.

[York99]

However, "why do we have to do all the heavy lifting here?" is answered by this "because the people taking the position of global warming or whatever you want to call it are asking other people to do actual heavy lifting and drastic changing." If you strongly take that stance, you sure as fuck better be able to explain it under heavy scrutiny if you're trying to convince the US government, state and local governments, foreign governments, corporations and individuals to make big moves and take, in some case, gigantic financial hits to back these claims.

And that has been done. Anyone with the ability to publish relevant papers (i.e. "do science") has explained it over and over

This point was in direct response to Shannon. "Why do we have to do all the heavy lifting?" You don't. You don't have to respond, either. A simple "look it up yourself, A-hole" whispered to one's self (as many people certainly did) and going about your masturbation would have been a prerogative. My point is that if you are going to engage in the discussion and reply, then reply. Of course I could have looked it up and found evidence on both sides, weighed it carefully, blah blah blah. I chose to ask a buddy... or a bunch of buddies, rather, and see if anyone could give me a reasonable answer so that I can go about my own important masturbation.

Of course I know there is evidence out there. I happen to be in the camp of thinking that global warming is a problem. My opinion was formed with the knowledge that the vast majority of the scientific community asserts that it is a problem. However, I was faced with an opposing argument and I didn't know how to respond. I used a life line, to go old school of about 4 years on you. Mr. Lover Lover.

[York99]

Man, I love mixin' it up on the forums!

I don't. I would rather not be baited into attempting to dispel ignorance. I fucking hate that fraction of society - left, right, white, black, rich, poor - that bashes and misrepresents science and deludes people for some fleeting power or a quick buck, all the while reaping the benefits of science, technology, and education. Whether it's the late Carl Sagan and his 'nuclear winter' junk science, the NIMBY anti-corporate (and probably funded by the coal industry) anti-nuclear crybabies, or the Jesus/Petroleum/Coal/Republican let-the-planet-burn-because-I'm-leaving-in-the-Rapture cabal, as far as I'm concerned they can sit in the goddamned dark and die of cholera.

Science. It Works, Bitches.

At first I thought this was aimed at me, seeing as I am the anonymous quotee. I like to mix it up not to antagonize and generally be a dick. I mean I like the debate and all that comes with it.

Just so everyone knows, I didn't start this just to stir shit up. I am truly trying to get a grasp on one part of this issue: the claimed shift of the scientific community from warnings of the climate getting too cold to too hot from thirty years ago to today. That's all.

[beardedlamb]

christ. this has been going on non-stop for like three hours. just call each other, for crying out loud.

i'm joking. this is actually very interesting and infuriating to watch.