Global Warming: Scientific Consensus Proved Wrong

[Bast]

Who is "most of us?" I'm really curious on that one. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the world isn't moving to take action against reducing their carbon footprint. In fact, the vast majority of the world would do anything to have a carbon footprint, or increase their carbon footprint. You still have millions of people on earth without access to electricity. Billions of people without access to electricity you and I are used to. Billions of people without cars, or access to transportation at all. Billions on earth with menial jobs that'd love to work in a dirty family. You have billions of people that are living in shantytowns. Hundreds of millions without access to the basic necessities that you and I take for granted everyday. The idea that you think the billion or so people on this earth living on less than 2$ a day are inclined to do what they can to REDUCE their greenhouse gas emissions at very best naive, at worst, extremely ignorant.

If humanity is indeed causing the earth to warm. We're not going to stop it. The menial pathetic steps that we can take in the western world to reduce our carbon emissions are going to be dwarfed, many times, by the development of the developing world.

And rightly so.

OH! Is this the CRY-ME-A-RIVER-FOR-THE-THIRD-WORLD-DAY?

I have news for you. Global warming will warm up areas like Canada, US, Europe and Russia potentially making more of their lands arable. On the other hand, it will warm up the tropics by so much that their crops will fail, they will experience floods and desertification. We're in this together but there's evidence that tropical countries - the poorer countries of the world - have more to lose.

Yeah, good luck with that development of the developing world.

If the ship goes down, they go down first. Remember the economy class passengers on Titanic?

You are right about one thing. They are pathetic steps and we need to take BIGGER steps.

 

[Bast]

The idea that you think the billion or so people on this earth living on less than 2$ a day are inclined to do what they can to REDUCE their greenhouse gas emissions at very best naive, at worst, extremely ignorant.

I remember reading about a man in Bangladesh who planted several trees a day for like all of his adult life. He was like 60 years old. I'd rather be inspired by them and their stories than be told by cynical, lazy people with no hope for the future that I can't do something or that we're doomed.

Anyway, I'm over this waste of time. OP, great post. I got a lot from that site. Thanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

Merkinball: here's a bit of homework regarding poverty and electricity. Try to think of 5 ways of increasing electricity availability in the poorer regions without causing an increase in CO2 emissions. There are solutions to the choice between poverty and global warming. In fact, clever investment and charity can both proactively reduce the desire for CO2 emission AND reduce poverty.

Additionally, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. To state that the Earth isn't warming due to humanity's acitivities would be as stupid as me saying that putting an extra blanket on my bed won't keep me warmer at night. Insulation is insulation. Insulation coupled with a heat source will cause additional warming.

 

[Merkinball]

OH! Is this the CRY-ME-A-RIVER-FOR-THE-THIRD-WORLD-DAY? - Bast

No, not really. I was simply blasting a hole in your naive holier than thou logic that, "most of us are doing what we can to lower our carbon footprint." It's patently false.

They are pathetic steps and we need to take BIGGER steps. - Bast

Like what? Do the world a favor. Cancel your internet. Throw away your computer. Sell your car. Cut the electricity to your house.

I remember reading about a man in Bangladesh who planted several trees a day for like all of his adult life. He was like 60 years old. I'd rather be inspired by them and their stories than be told by cynical, lazy people with no hope for the future that I can't do something or that we're doomed. - Bast

Is there a point to this? Or are you just scapegoating your nefarious thought of "we're doing what we can." While simultaneously using a computer and electricity to do so? Kinda like Al Gore flying on his own private jet.

Merkinball: here's a bit of homework regarding poverty and electricity. Try to think of 5 ways of increasing electricity availability in the poorer regions without causing an increase in CO2 emissions. There are solutions to the choice between poverty and global warming. In fact, clever investment and charity can both proactively reduce the desire for CO2 emission AND reduce poverty. - El

Like what? Blow my mind. Let me ask you a question. WHO is going to do that? World governments care very little about poverty. Aid to poor nations is pathetic, and more money from private philanthropy goes into these nations than governments.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is simply no way that you will ever develop the third world to a standard that we are used to and REDUCE greenhouse gases. These nations must crawl before they walk, let alone run.

I'd be willing to bet that there will be no drop in global greenhouse gas emissions for the next 50 years.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is simply no way that you will ever develop the third world to a standard that we are used to and REDUCE greenhouse gases. These nations must crawl before they walk, let alone run.

Have you taken nuclear power and other renewable energy sources into consideration? Why is it not feasible to reduce greenhouse gases while developing the third world through use of these? Denmark, for instance, gets over 20% of its energy from wind power.

 

[Merkinball]

Have you taken nuclear power and other renewable energy sources into consideration? - Erik Mosey

Environmentalists won't let DDT be used to wipe out Malaria that kills millions and effects hundreds of millions each year based on environmental grounds. Do you think that nuclear power will be allowed here? Or is it kinda of a NIMBY thing like windmill being put on Nantucket island, or the Finger Lakes of NYS. They're good enough for the curmudgeons of America, but not good enough for us?

Why is it not feasible to reduce greenhouse gases while developing the third world through use of these? Denmark, for instance, gets over 20% of its energy from wind power. - Erik

For a litany of reasons. First, automobiles. There are many caviats here too. The majority of people in third world countries don't have cars. Secondly, they cannot afford new cars. Let alone cleaner efficient burning cars. Ever been to a third world city? Furthermore, governments don't have the ability to regulate these cars, let alone have the want to regulate these cars. Then there are jobs. Eventually, just as in the west, in the third world, will move from farms to cities, and be working in DIRTY jobs. All the windmills in the world are not going to offset the factories that will be built in support of further global development. And it's exponential offset that must be accounted for. So far as power being used, Denmark powers itself on wind via subsidies, just as wind is powered via subsidies everywhere else. Third world nations cannot AFFORD to put wind turbines. They can't afford nuclear programs for that matter either. Because of that, third world countries will expand their energy production based on primarily carbon based power. Either oil, or coal. And these power plants will be FAR dirtier in nature than their western counterparts.

 

[aaglo]

Nice setup for a thread

Bad news for the republicans.

 

[West 36]

Well, I'll do my part in curbing the growing tide of.. tides by investing in Bounty, the quilted-quicker-picker-upper.

 

[stuge]

Environmentalists won't let DDT be used to wipe out Malaria that kills millions and effects hundreds of millions each year based on environmental grounds. Do you think that nuclear power will be allowed here? Or is it kinda of a NIMBY thing like windmill being put on Nantucket island, or the Finger Lakes of NYS. They're good enough for the curmudgeons of America, but not good enough for us?

Not using DDT against mosquitoes is good sense. It would only harm the enviroment and accomplish nothing, since DDT-resistant breeds would quickly become common.

Brought to you by the union of people anal retentive about science stuff.

 

[Bill3000]

Firstly, "apocalyptical Global Warming", as I like to call it, is hardly a scientific consensus. People who actually think that GW will cause cataclysms in the forseeable future tend to be vastly uneducated on the subject.

No problems there. I agree that it's dumb to think that it will destroy the world - at the very most it's an issue of whether anything can be done, if anything can be done after calculating the pros and cons, and if not, how to adapt to it.

Yes, temperatures are rising and this is a fact. But they were higher in the past. How much is due to human activity and how much is due to natural Earth cycles? And what are the actuall consequences of an increase in the global average temperature? Can you explain me how those models work? Can you show me how each of the tens of thousands of variables were properly isolated and taken into account? I don't think you can.

And I don't think you can either, so instead, I'll trust the experts and the scientific consensus like we do with any other issue. Go check out the IPCC. However, there are some people who know about this stuff here and can defend it; simply saying that scientists can't account for it because it's an extremely complex phenomenon dominated by chaos theory is stupid.

You talked about ideology, but I see just as much ideology on the apocalyptical field as I see on the denialist one. Or is Al Gore not a politician? Fact is the whole debate is seriously compromised by politics, on both sides, and only partisans fail to recognise it.

Who ever said I was defending Al Gore? I wasn't. I find the fact that he got the peace prize to be stupid. But you're essentially doing a false dichotomy here - that just because there are hysterical people on the environmentalist side, that gives you the right to completely ignore the huge consensus on the matter; there are absolutely no major scientific organizations which deny that global warming exists or that part of it has a man-made contribution. To ignore perfectly good science simply because the mass media can take it too far is delusional. It's like ignoring the scientific evidence that smoking is bad for you because there are hysterical people who want to ban smoking.

My objection is not one of policy or whether or not something should be done.
I've seen economists argue that the cost is way much more than the benefits to try to stop global warming, and that's fine, especially since it's done through academic analysis. My sole objection is the derision of science for the sake of making a political point. It's the same type of objection towards creationism.

 

[Merkinball]

Not using DDT against mosquitoes is good sense. It would only harm the enviroment and accomplish nothing, since DDT-resistant breeds would quickly become common. - stuge

Was using DDT effective in eliminating the existance of malaria in the west? Yes. Did it's use simply harm the environment and did it accomplish nothing here? No. Do we have DDT resistant breeds of malaria carrying mosquito's here? No.

 

[Till]

Ten percent of Doomsday is a lot.

(from the NOAA)

Breathing is part of the natural carbon cycle. (The blue/red sawtooth line) As you can see, it's amplitude is fairly constant. Outside of seasonal changes (one sawtooth period takes about one year), it has no impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[luiz]

No problems there. I agree that it's dumb to think that it will destroy the world - at the very most it's an issue of whether anything can be done, if anything can be done after calculating the pros and cons, and if not, how to adapt to it.

I'm OK with that view.

And I don't think you can either, so instead, I'll trust the experts and the scientific consensus like we do with any other issue. Go check out the IPCC. However, there are some people who know about this stuff here and can defend it; simply saying that scientists can't account for it because it's an extremely complex phenomenon dominated by chaos theory is stupid.

Actually I don't think there is anyone who can defend the environmental models here. Will anybody prove me wrong?

While there are no doubt serious people studying the subject, it is idiotic to believe any self professed expert, and even to blindly trust the widely recognised ones. As an Engineer I actually had to study Environmental Engineering in college - and my professor was one of the most, if not the most, pretigious authors on the subject in Brazil. And I can tell you first hand that the models he used for Global Warming calculations were terrible. In fact terrible is little to describe it, they were indeed outrageously bad. In any other field of engineering they'd be dismissed instantly - but in Environmental Engineering it's all they've got.

Even worse are the models supposed to measure the effects of Global Warming. Like the ones trying to prove a correlation between hurricanes and GW. Again, I challenge anyone here to prove those correlations or to explain me convincingly why those models are even minimally accurate.

Who ever said I was defending Al Gore? I wasn't.

Not my point. My point is that the paladins against Global Warming also have a political agenda. Just because someone claims to be scientist doesn't mean he is politically neutral.

I find the fact that he got the peace prize to be stupid. But you're essentially doing a false dichotomy here - that just because there are hysterical people on the environmentalist side, that gives you the right to completely ignore the huge consensus on the matter; there are absolutely no major scientific organizations which deny that global warming exists or that part of it has a man-made contribution. To ignore perfectly good science simply because the mass media can take it too far is delusional. It's like ignoring the scientific evidence that smoking is bad for you because there are hysterical people who want to ban smoking.

Well if you read my previous post you will notice that I do not deny GW or even that part of it is man made. I do deny alot of stuff that people take for "scientific consensus", though, like the supposed short-term catastrophic effects of GW or the infamous computer models.

I always like to make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely NO scientific consensus over what is the size of humanity's contribution to GW, nor what could be the consequences, if any, of an increase in average global temperatures.

My objection is not one of policy or whether or not something should be done.
I've seen economists argue that the cost is way much more than the benefits to try to stop global warming, and that's fine, especially since it's done through academic analysis. My sole objection is the derision of science for the sake of making a political point. It's the same type of objection towards creationism.

Yeah, just like some people blow GW way out of proportion just because of their political agenda. Like Al Gore.

It seems that my disagreement with you is that you only see people beign obtuse because of ideology on the denialist side, while in reality there are every bit as much if not more on the catastrophist side.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If humanity is indeed causing the earth to warm. We're not going to stop it. The menial pathetic steps that we can take in the western world to reduce our carbon emissions are going to be dwarfed, many times, by the development of the developing world.

This is true. China has already become, or soon will become, the #1 contributing nation to CO2 levels. And they're pretty damn stubborn.

And rightly so.

And this is false. The developing world has just as many people (proportionally) in low-lying coastal areas as the developed world. Their agriculture is as fragile, if not more so. Etc. The costs of climate change will far exceed what CO2 reduction would have cost, but CO2 reduction is an N-person Prisoner's Dilemma, which makes it really hard to cooperate on.

 

[MRM]

Not possible. Ten percent of civilization's CO2 emissions come from human breathing.

Maybe - but breathing don't add any additional carbon to the biosphere. Plant's remove carbondioxid from the athmosphere, animals, humans, bacteria etc release that carbon again. Zero sum game, so breathing is irrelevant.

 

[BasketCase]

Not when the number of humans alive at the same time is going way up.

It's entirely relevant because we humans have eliminated all the natural factors that control our population.

 

[BasketCase]

Jesus: Basketcase still doesn't comprehend his fallacy with regards to human exhalations???

In the months since he's first had it explained to him, the gears haven't clicked? Cripes.

Dude. Seriously. After having been in Off-Topic as long as you have, you should already know the following:

You think I'm full of crap??? Well guess what, I think the same thing about you. You should already know that's how these threads work.

I think the explanation of said alleged fallacy was full of crap. Shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No surprise.

“Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument”
-- Samuel Johnson

 

[BasketCase]

"Reason, on the other hand, is easily slain by prejudice."
-- BasketCase

 

[Verbose]

Not when the number of humans alive at the same time is going way up.

It's entirely relevant because we humans have eliminated all the natural factors that control our population.

You know, humans aren't the only things breathing, thus causing CO2 emissions. You have to factor the growth of humanity in relations to other forms of life in earth here. Compared to the increase in humans, they wouldn't seem to be doing nearly as well. Checks and balances...

After all, we need the greenhouse effect. It's what makes this place habitable. We just don't need a greenhouse effect in overdrive.