Scientists Agree - We are Ruining the World

[Masquerouge]

Are you trying to say that Cambridge University Press doesn't peer review the books they published?

No, I'm just saying the guy is controversial.

Besides, Lomborg is not a climatologist, he doesn't need to be, He doesn't claim he produces data, he just picks up, processes and interprets the data generated by internationally recognized research institutes. his expertise is in mathematics, statistics, and he is more than qualified to do what he did. He wouldn't have get his book published by Cambrigde University Press if he wasn't. Apparently others, like Michael Mann don't know how to process data since his infamous Hockey Stick graph published in Nature had serious problems with the way he processed the data and several corrections had to be made and published.

But he can very well choose the data he interprets, which is one of the complaints about his book, that is apparently still being reviewed...

The scientific community does not have a unique voice in this case, and if you have to appeal to your scientific status or to consensus to make a point, then your data is not good enough.

I agree on the second part (and I never said anything to the contrary), but not the first one. The scientific community is pretty much in agreement that there is a global warming.
Plus if the scientific community did not have a unique voice, why then would so many scientists be mad about that guy? And where are the scientists supporting him?

Besides, Do you really think that the river Seine, for example, is more polluted today than 30 years ago? or the Thames?. I know that the Nervion is less polluted than 30 years ago, same happens with London's air. It is less polluted today than 100 years ago, when people used to burn charcoal with high sulphur content to heat their houses. Now the smog cloud London used to have is not that big. He show that in his book, with data collected by other scientists and published in internationally recognized research institutes.

I never denied we were making improvement, which is in no part due to an acknowledgment that yes, we have an impact on the environment.

So, have you check any source other than a wiki that any green activist can edit? I mean, wiki is great if you are looking for non controversial information, like what does yellow mean and such, but for controversial issues like these, the ones with more time in their hands, the green activists in this case, always win.

Have you checked any source other that the guy's own website?
I think it was only fair to show the controversy surrounding that guy.

Lomborg is hated among some scientists because he showed the right picture with the data they produced. (His book has more than 2900 references, most of them to peer reviewed articles (I can't say all because I haven't checked them all). He doesn't produce any data, He just collects and puts it together, it is not that difficult to do.

But if you have no expertise in a given field, how can you be certain your interpretation is correct?

I you have to spend a good time, I recommend this [ulr=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller]Penn and Teller[/url] episode where they managed to collect signatures for a petition for banning dihydrogen monoxide, aka water, in a environmentalist demonstration. I know, those are not scientists, but they are the ones who spread the hysteria, the episode is worth watching, specially for the tree hugging and other "expert environmentalists".

As I said, I don't care if people get it wrong or are stupid. I care about what the scientists say. And I believe there is a great discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the media say, and my opinion is that this discrepancy is the cause of the current confusion, more than the minimal disagreement in the scientific community.

Once again, I'm not saying Lomborg is wrong.
I'm saying Lomborg is controversial because he goes against the scientifical consensus (which as I stated is a good thing for science), and that given that I have no expertise on the subject, I will rather trust the opinion of the scientific community than that of a lone maverick, or you (but nothing personal ).
Should the scientific community acknowledge that Lomborg's right, then I will give the guy credit.

 

[EdwardTking]

Because no matter what a scientist says, its not going to change the behavior of some uneducated third worlder intent on destroying the earth.

??? Let me guess the logic. Global warming is an islamic terrorist plot ???

 

[Brighteye]

Yes, because scientists have never been wrong before.

Smoking at one time was recommended by doctors and the scientific community as a safe and effective way at controlling weight.

In the 1970s we we headed for a major global cooling.

Apparently all our oil would of been depleted 3 times over by now.

Acid rain was going to be horrible for all of us.

SARS was going to cause a massive pandemic, oh wait now its bird flu.

Scientists are human, they can make mistakes or exaggerate things for effect to get more attention to their research or projects. If scientists came out and said our way of life would be fine for the next 1000 years, nobody would care about them or their research and the topics of off topic would be absent of climate trends in the planet.

Yes, but scientists have never been right before? Mechanics, biology, medicine, engineering and so on are all untrustworthy because scientists can be wrong? So now you're going to stop using your car, electricity, your artificial fabrics and crops grown with pesticides or GM modifications?

I think science has a pretty good record for being right about things. The fact that it's been wrong before is entirely irrelevant to the current consensus. Science cannot prove ideas: merely disprove them. inevitably you'll be able to quote ideas that have been disproven. That's how science works. If we didn't have some ideas that were wrong we'd never need science at all: we'd know it all already!
As it is, there is a huge array of data and evidence to suggest that we are causing global warming. Maybe it's wrong... but given the result if this conclusion is right, it makes sense to avoid the result, even if it's more likely not to be true.

 

[MobBoss]

??? Let me guess the logic. Global warming is an islamic terrorist plot ???

No. I am referring to the pre-industrials who pollute the earth with their slash/burn deforestation tactics.

Why should they listen to a guy in a labcoat? Answer: they wont. So unless you want to make them comply via violence, polluting will continue.

 

[Xanikk999]

No. I am referring to the pre-industrials who pollute the earth with their slash/burn deforestation tactics.

Why should they listen to a guy in a labcoat? Answer: they wont. So unless you want to make them comply via violence, polluting will continue.

Are you calling brazil a pre-industrial country?

 

[Narz]

I don't support eugenic arguments for the purpose of eliminating my philosophical enemies. I support conservation and making strides toward sustainable behaviors but advocating screwing people over with "natural selection" has no place in the environment movement. You know that the people who are going to be screwed most are those of us least able to respond... the poor and the young.

I never said I actively wished harm on anyone. But the fact is, most people are probably not going to change and are going to keep on thinking their culture and way of life is invincible (or if religious, that they will somehow be saved from the consequences of their actions). I share your sympathy for the young and poor people who will be stuck and helpless during any kind of emergency.

No. I am referring to the pre-industrials who pollute the earth with their slash/burn deforestation tactics.

pre-industrials? I don't recall the destruction of the rain forest being a major world issue in the early 1800's. The rainforest is cut down because of industry (often the fast food industry) as well as overpopulation.

Why should they listen to a guy in a labcoat? Answer: they wont. So unless you want to make them comply via violence, polluting will continue.

So make them comply via violence (aka : laws) then. Would you stand idly by while someone smoked a cigarette and blew smoke in your face? Well that's what many industries are doing and if will take stringent laws (enforced by violent action if necessary) I say so be it.

 

[Urederra]

Well, I took some of my precious time (10 minutes, lol) to look for some easy to access news about pollution. I focused mainly on two issues, atmospheric SO2 levels and the most important ecological dissaster of modern times, the Aral sea. I didn't even bothered about the ozone layer thing, since everybody already knows that is getting thicker. That is what I found:

SO2 levels

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/2.html

In the U.S., Canada, and Europe, pollutant controls and emissions trading programs have significantly reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide from industrial sources. European countries have reported a significant recovery of forests once considered to be particularly vulnerable to acidic precipitation. In the U.S., amendments made to the Clean Air Act in 1990 established a sulfur emissions trading program that has been effective in reducing sulfur emissions. Nitrogen oxides from automobile exhaust remain a significant problem; older designs of catalytic converters do not reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Newer designs of catalytic converters do reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from automobile exhaust, and there should be some improvement of air quality as older vehicles are replaced.

The link I posted have links to the sources of scientific data. That is the sort of things Lomborg report in his book.

The Aral sea thingy.

I just went to wiki for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Current Situation

Work is being done to restore in part the North Aral Sea. Irrigation works on the Syr Darya have been repaired and improved to increase its water flow, and in October 2003, the Kazakh government announced a plan to build a concrete dam (Dike Kokaral) separating the two halves of the Aral Sea. Work on this dam was completed in August 2005; since then the water level of the North Aral has risen, and its salinity has decreased. As of 2006, some recovery of sea level has been recorded, sooner than expected.[2] "The dam has caused the small Aral's sea level to rise swiftly to 125 feet, from a low of less than 98 feet, with 138 considered the level of viability." [3] Economically significant stocks of fish have even been returned, and observers who had written off the North Aral Sea as an environmental catastrophe will be surprised by unexpected reports that in 2006 its returning waters already were partly reviving the fishing industry and producing a catch for export as far as Ukraine. The restoration reportedly gave rise to long absent rain clouds and possible microclimate changes, bringing tentative hope to an agricultural sector swallowed by a regional dustbowl, and some expansion of the shrunken sea. [4] "The sea, which had receded almost 100 km south of the port-city of Aralsk, is now a mere 25 km away."

So, the ecological situation of the North Aral Sea is improving since 2003. and it is able to support living fish again. Is not published in a scientific paper but the improvement is so clear that you can't deny it. (I recall reading an article about the recovery on Science or Nature, though, but I am too lazy to look for it and only a few people in this board have access to it anyway.

http://www.worldbank.org.kz/WBSITE/...K:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:361869,00.html

Since it was completed last August, the eight-mile dike has raised water levels by an average of four meters in the Northern Aral Sea. That increase has revived local fisheries, restored hope in long-suffering communities and even affected the microclimate – clouds in May and rainstorms used to be unheard of in an area parched by decades of environmental abuse.

These changes will translate into more local crops and better possibilities for livestock because there will be more fodder,” said Shigeo Katsu, the World Bank's Europe and Central Asia Vice President, after his visit in May. The sea, which had receded almost 100 km south of the port-city of Aralsk, is now a mere 25 km away. The countryside is greener. And the fisheries which were idle in town, now team again with fish ready to be chopped, frozen and shipped as far west as Ukraine.

So, the worst ecological dissaster of the modern era is getting better.

You may find the levels of other pollutants getting worse, but you can hardly argue that everything is getting worse.

The rainforest is cut down because of industry (often the fast food industry) as well as overpopulation.

What do you suggest to fight against overpopulation? Kill people? Castrate/sterilize certain subgroups of population?

 

[Norlamand]

Is this a bad time to ask you for your opinion on Iran's nuclear program?

Don't try to bring reason or logic into this...............you know damned well it has no place in such a discussion. Stick to emotion and dogma.

 

[BasketCase]

??? Let me guess the logic. Global warming is an islamic terrorist plot ???

Uhhh....actually, that's not far off the mark. Some governments around the world are in fact saying global warming is a farce cooked up by the United States to keep developing nations down.

(No, I don't believe them either, but they are saying it....)

 

[BasketCase]

You don't understand it clearly. Global dimming does not run counter to the claim of global warming scientists and researchers. In fact it just goes to show that it's doubly important that we tackle both greenhouse gas emissions and general pollution or we'll end up with a far worse scenario.

I'd prefer you refrain from using those first five words again.

I understand the issue better than most. In the 70's, nobody was worried much about global warming--they were worried about pollution. As in soot and smoke. That's what we were trying to clean up.

What global dimming goes to show (in addition to other things) is that back in the 70's we took action based on our best knowledge at the time--and SURPRISE, suddenly it appears we may have merely been doing more damage.

You need to learn from that. You need to be aware that you might make the same mistake again (in the long term, it's very probable you will). And there are already several theories out there about things that could go wrong as a result of a sudden reduction in human CO2 emissions.....


Side note: Urederra posted some good stuff showing that supposedly Doomsday-level problems, were not. Good job there man!

 

[Narz]

So, the worst ecological dissaster of the modern era is getting better.

You may find the levels of other pollutants getting worse, but you can hardly argue that everything is getting worse.

What makes you say that it is the "worst" and how can you really judge until after you see what happens in the next hundred years or so?

What do you suggest to fight against overpopulation? Kill people? Castrate/sterilize certain subgroups of population?

A one-child mandate maybe. One things for sure, a whole lot of Indians, South-East Asians and Africans (and to a lesser extent Americans) are gonna be wishing their parents had been a bit more careful in the years to come.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you calling brazil a pre-industrial country?

Are their a bunch of primatives that live in the rainforests still? Anyway, I withdraw the pre-industrial comment, and let the slash and burn comment stand.

Once again, it does no good to say thus and so with no way to ensure people comply. People who dont want to will keep on doing what they will, and those that do comply will feel cheated.

Instead of reinventing the 'blamegun mk II' scientists need to invent a fix for the problem; not just another 'I told you so'.

 

[MobBoss]

pre-industrials? I don't recall the destruction of the rain forest being a major world issue in the early 1800's. The rainforest is cut down because of industry (often the fast food industry) as well as overpopulation.

Huh? The fast food industry is responsible? How?

So make them comply via violence (aka : laws) then.

Will not do one iota of good unless their government backs it. And what government in its right mind will back legislation that hurts its GDP?

Would you stand idly by while someone smoked a cigarette and blew smoke in your face?

Very bad analogy for the situation. Brazil isnt blowing smoke in the fact of the UK, nor, I suspect, do britons feel that way.

Well that's what many industries are doing and if will take stringent laws (enforced by violent action if necessary) I say so be it.

*cough* ah...who exactly is going to enforce these 'violent laws' with 'violent action'? The '17 resolutions in 14 years' UN? Tell me another whopper because there is no way in hell I would ever believe that.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Huh? The fast food industry is responsible? How?

Rainforest is cheap land (sometimes it can even be stolen) and it's rich, so it's good for raising beef on, at least for two or three seasons until all the nutrients are leached from the soil. Then they move on to another area.

McDonald's slashes-n-burns a horsehockyton more rainforest than some pygmy tribe

 

[Narz]

Huh? The fast food industry is responsible? How?

What Pontiuth Pilate said.

Will not do one iota of good unless their government backs it. And what government in its right mind will back legislation that hurts its GDP?

One that realizes there are more important things to take care of than GDP. Perhaps even one that realizes that an economic model based on exponential growth in a world with finite resources is fundamentally insane and untenable (someone's bound to realize it sooner or later).

Very bad analogy for the situation. Brazil isnt blowing smoke in the fact of the UK, nor, I suspect, do britons feel that way.

It's not about Brazil or Brittan. Every individual anywhere (especially those in power) who are contributing to pollution (and yes we all are in our own way, I personally am trying to do enough for the good to more than make up for my carbon footprint) is metaphorically blowing smoke in everyone else's face, and especially the yet undeveloped faces of future generations.

*cough* ah...who exactly is going to enforce these 'violent laws' with 'violent action'? The '17 resolutions in 14 years' UN? Tell me another whopper because there is no way in hell I would ever believe that.

You're probably right (for now), sadly. The UN has yet to get serious. Kyoto is far too soft.

 

[MobBoss]

Rainforest is cheap land (sometimes it can even be stolen) and it's rich, so it's good for raising beef on, at least for two or three seasons until all the nutrients are leached from the soil. Then they move on to another area.

McDonald's slashes-n-burns a horsehockyton more rainforest than some pygmy tribe

Now wait a second. How does raising beef on land 'leech' the nutrients from the soil?

Huh?

People have been raising beef all across the USA since forever....I dont recall ever reading about how the soil was 'leeched' out.

 

[BasketCase]

Will not do one iota of good unless their government backs it. And what government in its right mind will back legislation that hurts its GDP?

One that realizes there are more important things to take care of than GDP. Perhaps even one that realizes that an economic model based on exponential growth in a world with finite resources is fundamentally insane and untenable (someone's bound to realize it sooner or later).

Once such a government comes into existence (assuming same hasn't happened already!), how can that model be imposed on nations where the realization hasn't occurred?

Unless you're willing to point nukes at them--and demonstrate you're not bluffing by actually detonating a few--there's just no way to do it. Lots of nations around the world are determined, totally and absolutely, to industrialize no matter what. Virtually every nation that signed Kyoto has already defaulted on it, proving that everybody's hoping somebody else will solve the problem for them.

 

[Narz]

Now wait a second. How does raising beef on land 'leech' the nutrients from the soil?

Huh?

People have been raising beef all across the USA since forever....I dont recall ever reading about how the soil was 'leeched' out.

Perhaps you should start reading about it then. Topsoil depletion has been as issue in the US since even before you were born. Overfarming and grazing has been a major factor in the fall of empires.

It's never to late for an education.

Here's a start : Google : soil + erosion

And a potential solution : Wikipedia on Permaculture

 

[Narz]

Once such a government comes into existence (assuming same hasn't happened already!), how can that model be imposed on nations where the realization hasn't occurred?

Unless you're willing to point nukes at them--and demonstrate you're not bluffing by actually detonating a few--there's just no way to do it. Lots of nations around the world are determined, totally and absolutely, to industrialize no matter what. Virtually every nation that signed Kyoto has already defaulted on it, proving that everybody's hoping somebody else will solve the problem for them.

Hopefully it won't come to that.

Ideally, as global environmental problems become more pronounced and undeniable governments will adapt prophylactic measures of their own accord. There will also be the fact that nations that spend more of their resources on sustainable infrastructure will fare better than those that don't.

 

[StarWorms]

I'd prefer you refrain from using those first five words again.

I understand the issue better than most. In the 70's, nobody was worried much about global warming--they were worried about pollution. As in soot and smoke. That's what we were trying to clean up.

What global dimming goes to show (in addition to other things) is that back in the 70's we took action based on our best knowledge at the time--and SURPRISE, suddenly it appears we may have merely been doing more damage.

You need to learn from that. You need to be aware that you might make the same mistake again (in the long term, it's very probable you will). And there are already several theories out there about things that could go wrong as a result of a sudden reduction in human CO2 emissions.....


Side note: Urederra posted some good stuff showing that supposedly Doomsday-level problems, were not. Good job there man!

So you believe the best action to take is none whatsoever? To deliberately go against the stacks and stacks of evidence because it's only around 95%? Not tackling general pollution or greenhouse gas emissions will lead us to an even worse situation.