homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » Techno-Talking   » Science!   » Global Warming - is the "green movement" hoodwinking us? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Global Warming - is the "green movement" hoodwinking us?
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 15:21      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I shall start by saying I have never denied the evidence that the climate is currently warming, but I am old enough to remember when the climate had been cooling for several decades and the big fear was not that the polar caps would melt but that we were headed into a new Ice Age...

I will also say that I have never been convinced that the shrill alarmists' "2 degrees C rise will melt the ice caps and flood us all by next Wednesday" held any water (if you will pardon the pun). My studies of Mediaeval history have always indicated that even a few hundred years of recorded history back the world was appreciably warmer than it is now... never mind the fact that geological records show the world has warmed and cooled dozens of times well before a little African primate came down out of a tree and decided to have a look around on the ground and continued to do so well before and after the descendants of that little treedweller developed fire and all the rest.

Well last night I watched a very interesting documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on the UK's Channel 4, and this was not some dodgy "head in the sand" "it is not happening and I am not listening" puff but serious comment by a wide array of impressivley qualified scientists who poked a lot of holes into the whole "man made CO2 is destroying the climate" bandwagon. Oh yes and the co-founder of Greenpeace was on there too singing the same tune...

Remember the first thing you learned about studying data? I remember that the first rule I was taught was "correlation is no proof of causation" and these eminent scientists are saying we have been sold a lie for politial ends... CO2 levels are indeed correlated to global temperature and always have been - but it is not CO2 that causes temperature change but exactly the opposite, Temperature change causes the level of CO2 to follow behind about 5-8 years later because the oceans give up or absorb CO2 dependent on their curent surface temperatures.

The real cause of global warming? The Sun.... in more aggressive periods the world heats up as cloud formation is depressed, and in less aggressive ones it cools... pretty obvious really that the biggest source of energy input on this planet might be the cause of any [and all] - (EDIT: that comment is withdrawn, the jury should please ignore it, see the following posts) of its climate fluctuations don't you think?

Unfortunately I don't think you can actually watch the programme, but the Channel 4 website does have a big site presenting most of the arguments etc.

And before anyone goes off "half cock" no one on the programme was saying this is an excuse to carry on burning up fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow, or polluting, or otherwise messing up the environment, that is in fact a whole different debate. What they /were/ saying however is Global Warming as presented to the general public is a bogey man created for political ends and is predicated on a lie..., the lie that the piddling percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to human actions could actually have any effect on the global climate at all, and that this lie has been built up into an orthodoxy that it is dangerous for anyone in the political or scientific arena to even dare to question without fear of ostrasisim or being dubbed "heretic" (witch hunts anyone?)

Right, I have rambled on far too long as usual - my allegiances and views have been openly declared - I don't believe global warming is anything to do with human activity but a natural event that has been underway since the climate evolved and is controlled by the sun... (Gaia Theory? Anyone else read that?).

The Channel 4 page for the programme is at The Great Global Warming Swindle and it is a big "microsite"

Interested to see what the rest of you think, feel and have to say on the matter.

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 15:34      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Serenak wrote:
pretty obvious really that the biggest source of energy input on this planet might be the cause of any and all of its climate fluctuations don't you think?

My only quibble would be your use of the word all. No single source, even one as significant as the sun, can be said to be the exclusive cause of it all.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 15:41      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are correct Steen, incautious reviewing of my own post... I will edit the foolish and spurious "all" - you might also notice I somehow managed to get the thread in twice, once before it was finished (Doh!) but hopefully it will be deleted asap as I have asked Snaggy to do so.

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Richard Wolf VI
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 4993

Icon 10 posted March 09, 2007 15:47      Profile for Richard Wolf VI   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a neutral opinion towards Global Warming, though I do believe Climate Change is cyclical, it has become more violent the last 100 years... All this information mess has lead both sides to take the opportunity and get richer.

--------------------
The same old iWanToUseaMac... Who am I fooling? I'm getting a Wii now, iWanToUseaMac isn't :P
Get Opera. The best web experience.
Contest. Group. Success.

Posts: 1356 | From: Bogotá, Colombia | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 15:54      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, guys, while CO2 levels and average global temprature do cycle, what we have been seeing these past decades has shot WAY the hell past anything observed previously. When you burn carbon, you release CO2, and we are burning shitloads of carbon.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 16:12      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice thoughts Serenak.

I do agree that a lot of the doomsayers are full of it, and that we know far too little about the complexities of climate for us to be positive what effect we may or may not have on it, nor what is necessarily the cause of current changes. There is certainly some credible evidence that we are causing some level of global warming, though how much is the big question.

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't want to reduce air pollution, provided we are reasonable about the methods for doing so. Putting a lot of junk in the air can't be good for us.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 17:01      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't get me wrong here folks, I don't think willy nilly burning up millions of years of accumulated fossil reserves in a few decades is smart or even within our moral remit... I don't suggest chucking billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere is smart - and nor do they - what they are saying is natural carbon emmissions from the ocean or volcanoes make our output look like small change...

Xanthine - these (apparently) eminent scientists (and a leading "Green" activist) are saying that is part of the lie we have been fed... I am not a meterologist or climatologist - that is part of why I posted this thread; but my own (limited) understanding of the field has never shown me any evidence to support that postulation, and if CO2 drives temperature change how come from 1940 to 1975/6 when industrialisation was in full post war boom the global temperature was falling enough to make scientists and climatologists scared of a new ice age?

Personally I think we should be concentrating more on energy efficiency and recycling and a lot less on worrying that we are going to be waist deep in seawater by a week next Wednesday - the planet has taken care of itself for literally /billions/ of years - to think we somehow have the ability to fsck it over in the long term seems to me to be a complete and total arrogance... we can fsck it up enough to eliminate ourselves and a whole slew of other species quite probably, but in geological and evoloutionary terms that would be a mere hiccup... ELAs have apparently occured here on more than one occasion and the planet (and life on it) have recovered perfectly well thankyou very much.

Right now I have never been convinced by the "we are to blame for global warming" brigade and a slew of high flying scientists telling me I was right to disbelieve is (obviously) a nice feeling [Big Grin] but that doesn't remove my fears about pollution, resource depletion, bio diversity, over population (another 70s bugbear - Solyent Green anyone?) and all the rest. What the programme makers were saying (as I saw it at least) is global warming is natural and will not be likely to be the bringer of the Apocalypse - stop worrying about that and maybe consider how to deal with some real problems we do actually have influence over, like world poverty and hunger and a myriad other scourges that afflict the people of the world today.

Before I had children I was pretty much of the opinion that mankind is in fact a virus infecting this planet and the sooner we manage to kill ourselves off the better the planet will like it - now I still think that but I want it to happen after my daughters have had a good and fullfilling life... Shallow? Yes it is - but we are hardwired to think that way...

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 17:30      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A few comments...

1. From what I hear, the 'solar fluctuations' theory, while plausible, isn't backed by much actual hard data, while the greenhouse properties of CO2 (and Methane, a less well publicised but far more effective greenhouse gas) are easily demonstrated in the laboratory.

2. The amount of Carbon we're putting into the atmosphere is pretty easily calculated from global oil and coal production figures. Climate scientists have done the sums, and know how much of the CO2 increase is directly attributable to human activity.

3. The effect you describe, where increasing temperature causes an increase in CO2 is well-known, and really scary. The technical term is 'positive feedback loop', and it's the basis for some of the more extreme runaway-greenhouse doomsday scenarios. See also my comments about Methane above, it's being released in huge quantities from melting permafrost in the far North.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 18:08      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Um, guys, while CO2 levels and average global temprature do cycle, what we have been seeing these past decades has shot WAY the hell past anything observed previously. When you burn carbon, you release CO2, and we are burning shitloads of carbon.

How long previously have we been carfully observing weather and/or carbon levels? You know, the "past [few] decades." Whoa, imagine that, we see a pattern in a very small (few decades vrs life of mankind, life of the the world) and we jump to "we're all killing us." Lets remember that use of oil, indoor plumbling and landfills were andvancement over riding horses, dumping chamber pots and garbage into the streets. Technology evolved and we moved to what was more clean and convient.

When I don't have to buy gass, just poor pitcher of water into my car, and get the same or better performance... Call me.

Believing that any and all global climate change MUST be the result of our carbon based fules, and abandoning any other possible source as the cause is simply bad science. A corralation doesn't a cause make. That said, it is better to be safe than sorry, within reason. Passing things like Kyoto is not a bad idea, and there is a lot of "green engineering" technologies that are truely facinating and ground breaking. Everything in moderation.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 18:29      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GM: I recommend doing some reading before shooting from the hip. I'm not going to educate you - I'm rather busy educating myself at the moment.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 18:31      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let's rephrase the problem:

Imagine that you're standing on the tracks at a train yard with maybe four other tracks adjascent. You see a train aproaching from the distance, but it's too far away to see which track it's coming in on. You've got a 20% chance of being wrong if you decide it's not going to hit you and stay on the tracks.

Why not just get off the tracks?

For the metaphorically challenged: Global warming = train. Tracks = possible results of global warming. Standing on train tracks in a train yard = human contribution of greenhouse gases (and general pollution) = pretty stupid in the first place.

Sure, we might not kill ourselves with our own technology- nature might do us in first. But it's pretty damned stupid not to make sure that when we go it's not our fault.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 18:37      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But that requires change, and change is scary.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 18:50      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even scarier than an aproaching train? Really, that sounds like rubber-shorts time to me.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 19:16      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, you never know what's off that track. You might step on a nail, or land in dog poo, or something. [Wink]

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 09, 2007 20:14      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still don't see how that's a problem... Unless it's FRESH dog poop. Train over fresh dog poo on my shoe any day.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stibbons
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 2515

Member Rated:
5
Icon 8 posted March 10, 2007 03:50      Profile for Stibbons   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I want to write a long, detailed reply, but I don't have the time. If you want to make an informed decision on climate change, I'd recommend you READ AROUND THE SUBJECT rather the jumping on the bandwagon of a few "respected" (translation: laughed at by the rest of the scientific community) scientists who's favoured medium for publishing their ideas is Channel 4.

If you want some useful references or to chat about it, PM me and I'll get back when I have a chance. But lets get one thing straight - climate change is happening, and those in developed countries need to do something before it destroys the good ol' British/American way. The last thing we need is a group of people telling us that is all a lie.

Posts: 1143 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 07:23      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stibbons:

I did not "jump on the bandwagon" of anything thanks very much, I watched a programme that presented a challenge to the current othodoxy on CO2 and global warming and thought it might be an interesting subject for debate.

If I wanted it to be a political slanging match with /. style name calling I would have posted it in the "I'm Right" threads. I understand that quite obviously such an important issue tends to have people fairly impassioned and that is good. But debate is good too, and careful reviewing of all the evidence laid before us.

I have repeatedly stated that lowering CO2 emissions strikes me as a damn good idea in and of itself, without any scary "doomsday" scenarios, recycling and a whole raft of other green issues and technologies are a damn good idea too... It is never smart to shit in your own nest after all.

I will however re-iterate the one point in contention "global warming is a man made phenomenon that will lead to a dreadful apocalypse within a few decades..." I have yet to see a single piece of convincing evidence for this proposition. The climate is changing - no one doubts that, but over my father's lifetime it spent 4 decades getting cooler and then 3 getting warmer. The world is not as warm now as it was in the middle ages and we don't have a lot of records of dreadful ecological disasters then. When I was younger we were supposedly headed into a new Ice Age, which would have devastating effects on civillisation as we knew it - leading climatologists and the like said so - then the world started to warm up, and in no time leading climatologists and others are telling us the world is going to turn into a blazing hell hole which will have devastating effects on civillisation as we know it....

Sorry - maybe it is my age but I think a healthy dose of scepticism can do wonders in these sorts of situations.

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stibbons
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 2515

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 08:58      Profile for Stibbons   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
I did not "jump on the bandwagon" of anything thanks very much,

I've met too many of that type, it's an instinctive response [Smile]

quote:
If I wanted it to be a political slanging match with /. style name calling I would have posted it in the "I'm Right" threads.
The unfortunate fact is that it is a very political subject, both in the public eye and in science. There are many scientists who will say this kind of thing in any number of subjects JUST to get the attention. And they do it in the "pop science" medium, such as TV (Conway Morris et al.'s Extraterrestrial) or newspapers (Chen's Himalaya paper). From watching the show, it appears to be just that.

quote:
But debate is good too, and careful reviewing of all the evidence laid before us.
Indeed. However there were reams and reams of evidence that the show ignored, and I think that it is impossible to make your mind up based on one poorly researched TV show (and irresponsible of C4 to actually commission something like that!).

On the pop science note however, watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I was very impressed with this film, mainly by the fact that Al Gore referenced everything he said! Ok, so there were a few errors, but it was much more rigorous than The Great Global Warming Swindle. And don't get me started on the editor's (Martin Durkin) previous work...

quote:
I will however re-iterate the one point in contention "global warming is a man made phenomenon that will lead to a dreadful apocalypse within a few decades..." I have yet to see a single piece of convincing evidence for this proposition.
The increase in CO2 from 280ppmV in 1850 to 2001 levels of 370ppmV is due to anthropogenic input. The reason for this is that burning fossil fuels is adding 5-7Pg (billion tonnes) of C to the atmosphere every year. Oceanic drawdown can only cope with c.1Pg of this. With an increase in industrial nations and energy use this value is only going to get higher. Records (ice core bubbles pre 1950, atmosphere sampling post then) show an exponential increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution. So not only are we adding more and more C to the atmosphere, we are also increasing the rate at which we do it.

We agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Worse ones are water vapour and methane. And whereas CO2 has a negative feedback effect (heating leading to drawdown by biota, increased silicate weathering abd hence removal of CO2), water and methane have positive feedbacks (the water saturation of the atm increases with T, and the increase in rate of biological activity releases more methane). So by increasing CO2 levels we are increasing the levels of worse greenhouse gases. This can not only be shown to be the case now (same method as recent CO2 levels), but the same has happened over and over again over the last 2Ma right before a catastrophic warming, causing sea level rise (highstands - go look for raised beach terraces in Scotland, the awesome coral terraces in Greece, and exposed reefs in the tropics). Can we correlate these to increased temperatures? Why yes, we can, using d18O records (the ratio of 18O to 16O in water, foraminiferal skeletons, etc). And they match!

So we know a few things:
- Increased CO2 levels causes increase in other greenhouse gasses
- Increased greenhouse gasses cause increased temperature
- In the past, greenhouse gases and temperature increase correlated with decrease in ice volume and increased sea levels
- Increased sea levels and decreased ice volumes in turn correlate with various climatic events such as reducing or stopping the overturning circulation in the oceans
- And the kicker - anthrogenic input is causing CO2 to rise more rapidly than ever before.

So of course, none of the above will happen! That would just be silly wouldn't it?!

quote:
The world is not as warm now as it was in the middle ages and we don't have a lot of records of dreadful ecological disasters then.
I'm not doubting that it might be true, but I would like to see some evidence.

quote:
the world is going to turn into a blazing hell hole which will have devastating effects on civillisation as we know it....
No. The climate is going to change. This will have devastating effects on civilisation as we know it.

You know as well as I do just how well the UK handles slightly hotter/slightly colder than average temperatures. As storms get worse, crops fail, and costs spiral the western world will be thrown into turmoil. And then when the Gulf Stream turns off (not if, it will, just PROBABLY not in the next 10 years) we'll be plunged into the same kind of temperatures as Moscow, something Britain is not capable of coping with.

Meanwhile the hot places will get hotter and dryer. Making humanitarian crises in Africa even worse.

quote:
I think a healthy dose of scepticism can do wonders in these sorts of situations.
Indeed it is. But only if you're equally sceptical of both sides. Google Scholar pulls up some nice, non-too-technical results if you want something to read [Smile] I'd also suggest Rapid changes of glacial climate simulated in a coupled climate model and Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes which both talk about the instability of the Gulf Stream and the climate changes it makes and reacts to. Ice core evidence for climate change in the Tropics: implications for our future gives a nice overview of what can be measured about the past, and the evidence for very rapid recent climate change verses the long term.
Posts: 1143 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 13:28      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you Stibbons for that interesting reply and I will indeed look at some of the references you listed.

I do indeed treat both sides with a fair degree of scepticism because as you say a "pop science" TV program is not exactly balanced debate.

I have made my current position clear and I in no way "made my mind up" based on this show - if evidence that I have not seen before seems compelling enough then my position might change.

Either way no one is denying climate change - and as I said before even if human CO2 emissions are not the main cause that is not any reason to not reduce them - continually bunging billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere cannot be a smart thing to do...

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 14:42      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
GM: I recommend doing some reading before shooting from the hip. I'm not going to educate you - I'm rather busy educating myself at the moment.

I'm not just shooting from the hip. The fact of the matter is a correlation doesn't causation make. I believe that making strives to reduce CO2 and H2O gass vapors are very important, in case we are the sole cause of the warming trend; but I'm also dressing as a pirate, as well, just to be sure.

Let's look at the history lesson here:
We had a problem, we needed food.
We have a solution, we hunt and gather from immedate area.
We have a problem, we eat everything here and we want to visit aunt on other coast and eat all her food.
We have a solution, we walk.
We had a problem, we wanted to get places but they were too far to walk there in a reasonable amount of time.
We make a solution, we domesticate horses to ride.
We have a problem, horses lay "road apples" which rain washes into drinking supply, people walk in it and clean it off using simple towels before reasonable hygine is established causing health issues in highly popluated areas.
We have a solution, a "clean" alternative to the horse and buggy that goes faster to boot.
We have a problem, our cars produce gass emmissions which may contribute to global warming trends.
We have a solution, hybrids/solor/whoknowswhat engines that are both clean but also more powerful and effecient.
We have a problem...

It's the story of man, and it's man's nature to assume that every stumbling block is the end of the world. If I had a penny for everytime in mans history that we thought that the world was going to end, I'd be rich. The world is not as fragile as people would like to believe, and the extinction of the human race not such a tradic (or near event) as to move me to demolish all cars.

I have faith in the ingeunity of todays engineers. Scientists like to find problems and figgure out why, and then worry at the comming doom. Engineers like to build solutions to problems that out preform anyone's expectations. Like I said, the cool tech comming out of "green engineering" is very cool stuff. I wager cool enough to move the market place off the spice ("he who controls the spice controls the world") and move them onto a better way.

The reasons to leave Oil are many and varied, but to spend all the time working on the oil problem without seeing if there are other possible causes to the warming trend is irresponsible and bad science.

X, do you drive, by the way? Use electricty? Alright, then.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 16:00      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drive? Rarely. Once a week, tops. Use electricity? Kinda hard not to. But I do what I can to keep my consumption down. I wish I was back in WA where hydropower is king. I don't have an AC, which helps. I use compact flourescents. I turn shit off when I'm not using it, including my computer. My power bills consistently come in at less than $30/month, and they drop below $20 when my brother is gone during the summer. This is in the face of rate hikes and rising natural gas prices, mind you. I'm vegetarian ,so I eat low on the food chain, and I also recycle. I can't get on too high a horse because I do generate radioactive waste, but, fortunately, my waste has a short half life and is otherwise non-toxic, so after a couple months of decay time it can go out with the normal garbage. Why? What are you doing?

For the rest, I refer you to Stibbons' excellent post (he's probably more qualified to talk about this stuff than anyone else on the boards) and Mr. Spastic's excellent analogy.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2007 18:33      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
The fact of the matter is a correlation doesn't causation make.

(Maybe this better belongs in the "I'm old enough to remember" thread...)

I'm old enough to remember when the tobacco lobby was still denying the link between smoking and cancer. Their argument went something like this...

repeat

    Health lobby: We have laboratory experiments showing that tobacco causes cancer in lab rats (sorry Xanthine)

    Tobacco Lobby: That's just rats, there's no proof it causes cancer in humans.


    HL: Yes there is. We have this mountain of statistics showing a strong correlation between smoking and cancer.

    TL: Ah, but correlation doesn't prove causation.

    HL: But we have these lab experiments...

until (it's no longer possible to deny reality)


The fact is, when you have

a) a 'cause' some event that can be easily demonstrated to have happened, eg a human smoking a cigarette, or a known tonnage of coal and oil being burned,

b) easily repeatable lab experiments showing a cause-effect mechanism,

c) real-world observed data which closely matches the 'effect' that would be predicted from the lab results,

then you have proven causation to anyone who's not actively trying not to believe.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 11, 2007 04:19      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I just watched the programme that started the thread off, and I thought it was very good (I also watched an inconvenient truth for the first time the other day).

I found the great global warming swindle to be a much better presentation of evidence than an inconvenient truth, and it raised some very important political questions.

The way the issue has been reported by the popular press is rubbish. If you get a chance to watch the programme, take it (at least if you are a Brit - The politics of Maggie Thatcher may be a bit OTT for those ouside our shores).

The show is probably available online here through 4oD. Those with a full virgin media package can get it through their fancy tellyboxes.

UPDATE: Fake Steve posted about it, and it has popped up on youtube here.

Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted March 12, 2007 17:46      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The war in Iraq sounded pretty good, until people took a good look at who was selling it.

The idea that all this fossil fuel burning is having no impact on the planet is far fetched.

I'm sure if this video were anything close to something that the BUSHFAILURE regime would like us to see then we'd see it.

But hearing that it's running on the BBC between Monty Python and Benny Hill re-runs isn't making me much of a convert.

Or was this produced in cooperation with BP and Shell Oil -- the North Sea, working for you?

Right now anything from the far reaches of the right must be suspect. They have given us no reason to believe them.

Colonel Panic

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 01:02      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another story
Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam