Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[carlosMM]

I bet the last ice age started because we learned how to use fire....

It was triggered by the amount of solar radiation reaching earth and its distribution.

The non-start of the current n(non-existent) ice age is caused partly by our mastery of fire - without fire mankind wouldn't have been able to build a civilization that leads through various processes to a massive increase in athmospheric methane content.

 

[BasketCase]

Took a quick read back through the thread, and found a couple things I should probably adress:

To assume that the earth system will take care of us no matter what we do is a form of religion (pray for us BasketCase).

My exact words were not that the Earth will take care of us--but that it will take care of itself. The planet doesn't need humans to maintain the balance; we're important to the balance only in the sense that we inhale oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide, feed on other living things to keep their population in proportion, and serve as food for other living things. Any mammal species can fulfill the above requirements.

We humans have done our darnedest to escape the above equation, and our system of morality says that we cannot return to it. The available methods Mother Nature can use to control human population are: predators, disease, starvation, and warfare. Wild animals partake of all four in varying degrees (including warfare). But we humans can't abide any of them.

I myself have encountered (potential) predators while hiking in the Sierras. I and my fellow hikers know how to get rid of a grizzly bear, for example. In eight years of hiking, I have never been threatened by a predator. So predators are out. We humans are too smart for them.

The United Nations constantly and stridently demands an end to the other three: world hunger, warfare, and disease.

Gothmog is right: we have indeed made major alterations to our environment since we dumped the nomadic lifestyle. But they are changes that have more or less random effects. We eliminate some species, encourage the growth of others, and create some new ones of our own. We spew gases into the atmosphere, some of which have warming effects and others that have cooling effects.

The problem lies in knowing what the FINAL result will be. As Goth said, over the course of its figurative life, the planet has experienced hiccups in its temperature as it responds to changing feedbacks. His chart highlights the major ones in gray; there are, in addition, numerous minor ones that are larger than the current (alleged) warming trend. How do we know that the Earth isn't having one of those? (My opinion is that we do not know whether or not the planet is doing that, I should probably reiterate that)

Oh, and Goth's graph also shows that the world actually has TWO problems at the moment. This thread discusses the first one; the second is that the planet is due for another Ice Age, and cooling the planet back down may be precisely the wrong thing to do. Problem is, we don't know.

 

[Pikachu]

My point was that although the scientific evidence seems to point to a direct link between a rise in air pollution and global warming, other factors unknown to anyone may be causing the globe to be warmer.

But we do know that the greenhouse effect is increasing, and we have measurements to support that.

Of course we cannot be totally sure that this does not trigger an unknown feedback mechanism that cancels out it’s effect and at the same time a different natural mysterious effect causes the same warming that the observed increased greenhouse effect would have caused if it wasn’t cancelled out by the other effect unknown to anybody

That is an interesting theory, but it seems quite unlikely to me compared to the obvious explanations that is supported by tons of evidence.

 

[BasketCase]

BasketCase, i'm trying to not being partisan, but your last objection is silly. Carlos is not saying that it's a monofactorial thing. He stated that the heating is not in accordance to the Milankovic cycles. By saying that he actually implies that it is a multi-factor thing.

According to Gothmog's chart from page 9, the planet is at the right point in its cycles. The planet is at a warm peak, right where it should be--how do we know the current (alleged) warming trend isn't simply part of the larger one?

You stated clearly your opinions, and as every other person around you have every right to do it. The problem is that you put your opinions as if they were scientific facts, while actually they're just... opinions.

I've been very clear in stating which of my opinions are opinions, and which I consider fact. Whenever I called something a fact, I explained why I considered it one.

However, I'm in the extremely difficult position of trying to prove that something hasn't been proven. How the hell do you do that??? It's next door to impossible. But hey, I could use a challenge. The only really permissible ways to do it are to show that the currently accepted theory has problems, or to pose an alternative backed by evidence. I've done both (I mostly did the Other Theories bit in previous Global Warming threads). But evidence is not proof, and so my alternative theories may be wrong.

As you may have noticed, some people with very deep scientific knowledge have partecipated to the discussion.

Yep.

I should point out that Gothmog himself stated that his own theories are not proved for certain. Many of the web sites and other articles I've read on the subject say the same thing; the authors voice varying degrees of uncertainty about whether or not global warming is real and whether it's actually being caused by humans. Most of those sites then go on to say they believe in the theory anyway, which I think is a bad idea.

I also know that human beings are strongly influenced by peer pressure. The scientific community has always had a problem with inertia; the first guy to voice a dissenting theory is almost always laughed out of the room--and then, frequently, he later turns out to be right.

Also, read back in the thread to that bit I posted about the "crackpot" scientist, and open the spoiler for proof that, sometimes, the best scientific minds just plain screw up.

We're arguing about something were devastating environmental hazards lurk in either direction (making the planet too hot or too cold), so I think we should take extreme caution before believing anything for sure.

We're also also arguing about a theory which is very politically convenient for those who advocate it. And we all know politicians and lobbyists are not above lying for a cause.

 

[carlosMM]

According to Gothmog's chart from page 9, the planet is at the right point in its cycles.

which graph?
this one? (page 18 for me - a link to the post would have been better than a page number, as the page number depends on the idividual user's forum preference settings, here goes:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3020941&postcount=151)

So from this you read that we SHOULD be at a warm peak right now?
How do you do that?
Have you even bothered to look a thte scale on the graph? It will be very hard to read out something on this graph that gives you an accuracte prediciton at a 100 or 500 year interval.

Sorry, you can't use this graph to make any claims about tmep changes in the last 200 years.

As for your claim that we should be at a warm peak, if regarded in a say 10,000 year view:
Precession is down
Obliquity is still high, but going down
Eccentricity is middle level and going down.
--> your claim is false.

See here, too:

Figure 1. Comparison of July insolation values from Berger and Loutre (1996) with ice-core concentrations
of atmospheric CH4. (a) Long-term Vostok CH4 record of Petit et al. (1999), using time
scale of Ruddiman and Raymo (2003). (b) GRIP CH4 record from Blunier et al. (1995), dated by
counting annual layers. Early Holocene CH4 trend projected in late Holocene to values reached
during previous early-interglacial CH4 minima.

this graph contins as a dotted curve the insolation - the RESULT of the effect of the above-named cyclicities. Sadly for you and your claim, we are at a LOW, not a HIGH! I am a bit surprised to see you make such a false claim after you had had this graph and the paper it comes from available for so long!

I also know that human beings are strongly influenced by peer pressure. The scientific community has always had a problem with inertia; the first guy to voice a dissenting theory is almost always laughed out of the room--and then, frequently, he later turns out to be right.

Yes, when people said that earth was warming they were ridiculed, especially by those who were paid by oil companies.
When they said CO2 is going up because of burning of fossil fuels, they were laughed at...


seems they were right.......but you still want to deny it.

 

[carlosMM]

We're also also arguing about a theory which is very politically convenient for those who advocate it. And we all know politicians and lobbyists are not above lying for a cause.

THis is the greatest nonsense you have so far posted!

First of all, it is in NO WAY politically convenient! It was extremely INconvenient, and only an absurd amount of hard work has slowly convinced those opposed and capable of creating massive resistance (oil industries) to accept it. Go to their websites and check what they say - then go to a news archive and check their initial reactions! it is extremely INconvenient to lose grants because you aid something the oil industries do not like.

Second, you are now claiming scientists are lobbyists and politicians and liars - I feel a strong urge to punch your nose for such an insult. Think twice before throwing dirt at people and presenting them as scum!


Your insulting remark actually disqualifies you from any serious discussion - someone so low and slimy as you should better find a nice wet dirt hole to hide in! It would fit you better that making high and lofty remarks about what egoistical liars we scientists are.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tR1cKy]

Carlos, in the statement you have just quoted BasketCase didn't say that. You seem to have read it hastily and without sufficient attention.

You cannot deny that there is political pressure over this thing, from both parties. You cannot deny that today there's a powerful lobby supporting environmentalist views and actively inducing people into believing to the global warming as a faith. You cannot deny that scientists are humans as everyone else, and sometimes they can be dishonest as everyone else. Do a google search about the "element 118" affair, and you'll find a clear example of a dishonest scientist. But in no way this does imply that all scientists are lobbysts and liars.

 

[BasketCase]

Thank you Tricky. You nailed it square on the head.

But in no way this does imply that all scientists are lobbysts and liars.

Second.

One side or the other must be wrong (either lying, screwing with the data, or just making mistakes)--but I don't know which side. Who knows, maybe people on both sides screwed up.....

 

[BasketCase]

So from this you read that we SHOULD be at a warm peak right now?
How do you do that?

By looking the chart and noting that each major temperature peak (highlighted in gray) corresponds primarily to a peak in eccentricity, and secondarily to a peak in solar forcing. The resolution on the chart is good enough to see that, and also good enough to show that the correlations are not exact down to the pixel.

The chart also shows that the current warm period actually came a little after the last peak in eccentricity. The whole thing started when that blue line was already on its way down.

 

[carlosMM]

Carlos, in the statement you have just quoted BasketCase didn't say that. You seem to have read it hastily and without sufficient attention.

You cannot deny that there is political pressure over this thing, from both parties. You cannot deny that today there's a powerful lobby supporting environmentalist views and actively inducing people into believing to the global warming as a faith. You cannot deny that scientists are humans as everyone else, and sometimes they can be dishonest as everyone else. Do a google search about the "element 118" affair, and you'll find a clear example of a dishonest scientist. But in no way this does imply that all scientists are lobbysts and liars.

tr1cky, you're dead wrong: he wrote 'all' who advocate it. Not 'all politicians' or some such, but 'all'. That encompasses those who do the original science as well as others, such as politicians.

I expect him to take it back ASAP.


As far as I am concerned, until he has done that (or clarified how scientists are exempt from the term 'all') this discussion is over for me. And, btw, as for lying, check how he describes his interpretation of the graph and compare it to the more detailed ones I posted. Ignoreing evidence that is more exact is also a form of lying - omission of known facts in order to tell something that is not true.

 

[BasketCase]

tr1cky, you're dead wrong: he wrote 'all' who advocate it. Not 'all politicians' or some such, but 'all'.

Oh yeah???

QUOTE ME.

I require a quote specifically. Nothing else will do.

 

[carlosMM]

Oh yeah???

QUOTE ME.

I require a quote specifically. Nothing else will do.

yeah yeah, the usual from you. Now you see what you posted, and see that how you combined the two sentences implies what I said it does, so now you will play the semantics card Instead of simply saying: 'Oops, that's not what I meant'. But your ego is too big for that, isn't it?

 

[BasketCase]

tr1cky, you're dead wrong: he wrote 'all' who advocate it. Not 'all politicians' or some such, but 'all'.

You didn't quote me saying the above.

Either quote me or shut your yapper.

 

[carlosMM]

You didn't quote me saying the above.

Either quote me or shut your yapper.

it is in '', that'*s a quote. You're being obnoxious out of principle, that's about the one thing you're good at. But, that shows how little you have in solid arguments.

 

[BasketCase]

No, it shows you lied again.

 

[Mountain-God]

Climate change as human affect is eminently logical - not to mention evident.

How many people, particularly naysayers, actually have relevant education in the area - and the attending range of contacts from which to further derive information?

There are reasons why climate change as human affect is generally widely accepted - at least amongst the appropriately educated - it's not a sexy new science, or sexy new fad.

The widening consensus is the result of trillions of 'man hours' of computer simulation and hundreds of thousands of hours of practical research and debate - furthermore in the face of immense financial pressures from lobby groups easily capable of, and literally have, directed $billions 'anti-lobby', so to speak.

Contrasting, there is little to reasonably suggest real bias amongst the incovenient community - as any industry likely to benefit from acceptance of climate change: Human affect, is so small as to be relatively laughable.

Are scientists simply, like bureauracrats, making work from themselves?

I would answer with the reality - that whilst those $billions were being directed 'anti-lobby' and many scientists were forced to use their own funds, or beg and whore themselves to obtain little more than token funds for research into climate change, there were no insentives - not when fellow scientists had money thrown at more politically correct researches, and ample opportunity to publish - the scientist's lifeblood.

But now, the accusation is that such scientists only advocate as whores toward obtaining mythically vast amounts of cash for climate research - amounts which could have been fractional if carried out decades ago, and vastly less than that used toward burying a billion heads in the sand.

I'm reminded of the mountain of semi-religious debate around various economic 'systems' and the very massive lack of education typifying those.

Should those of us less educated in a subject refrain from debate? No!

But we must certainly recall the very real limits imposed by our ignorance - and not use those as reason to dismiss outright what may simply be uncomfortable fact.

 

[carlosMM]

No, it shows you lied again.

ah, your favorite lie: pretend to be too stupid to find your own posts (previous page), make categorical demands from other posters instead of backing up or apologizing for your BS, then calling them liars.

BasketCase, I'm just glad that there's very few of your kind in the world. You are the kind og guy who, out of pure bloddymindedness, lies about global warming, lies about scientists, lies about anything that doesn't fit your own conspiracy theories and comfy lifestyle.

You have so far failed to back up ANY of your positions in this thread - you're thus the laughing stock of this discussion. For me, the matter ends here: nobody has brought any serious proof or even indications of doubt that global warming is not massively stregnthened by humans. Dream on your dream, but please save us the bother of reading your stuff.

 

[BasketCase]

Carlos, your favorite lie is to claim I said things I never said. I did read back through the thread in an attempt to find the latest thing you accuse me of saying, just in case. I can't find it because it does not exist.

I have in fact done a very thorough job of backing up my position in here--especially considering that backing up the position "I don't know if global warming is caused by humans" is extremely difficult.

But we must certainly recall the very real limits imposed by our ignorance - and not use those as reason to dismiss outright what may simply be uncomfortable fact.

Albert Einstein did exactly that around 1915.

A brief recap of something I posted in here a few pages back: when the theory that the Universe is expanding was first proposed, Einstein didn't like the theory at all; he was a strong believer in a static and unchanging universe. Einstein proposed the idea of a "cosmological constant", a force that exactly balanced gravity, thereby producing a static universe.

Note the fallacy Einstein committed: he first decided what he wanted to believe, then created a theory to support it. You're supposed to do it the other way around.

So, while I am strongly-pro science, I take its results with a grain of salt.

 

[carlosMM]

Carlos, your favorite lie is to claim I said things I never said. I did read back through the thread in an attempt to find the latest thing you accuse me of saying, just in case. I can't find it because it does not exist.

BasketCase, BasketCase, now you've done it - I must now consider you non-sane, or at least not in control of what you type....

here's your post as it stands now....:

We're also also arguing about a theory which is very politically convenient for those who advocate it. And we all know politicians and lobbyists are not above lying for a cause.

well, here we go:

no qualification on 'those who advocate it'
you like them to 'not above lying' and 'politicians' by an 'and' at the beginning of the sentence. There you are: you said it.

Also, note the time of the edit:

Last edited by BasketCase : Sep 15, 2005 at 10:58 AM.

that was AFTER my reply - what did you change?????



Now, why didn't you clarify what you said, qualified the 'those who'? Why did you become so hostile?

I know you by now - you become this hostile and semantics-prone when you are wrong......

 

[Mountain-God]

Albert Einstein did exactly that around 1915.

A brief recap of something I posted in here a few pages back: when the theory that the Universe is expanding was first proposed, Einstein didn't like the theory at all; he was a strong believer in a static and unchanging universe. Einstein proposed the idea of a "cosmological constant", a force that exactly balanced gravity, thereby producing a static universe.

Note the fallacy Einstein committed: he first decided what he wanted to believe, then created a theory to support it. You're supposed to do it the other way around.

So, while I am strongly-pro science, I take its results with a grain of salt.

it's always wise to take anything with a grain of salt until one can prove/observe personally.

However, as obviously as you compare one man's then untestable theory to another theory resulting from trillions of hours of computer simulation, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

... You provide example of one educated man's error, then presume your own, presumably educated opinion is more valid than a multitude?

Hubris.