Global Warming

[Maria]

Global dimming is thought to have slowed the speed of global warming up until the 1990's. Pollution control and reduction of particulates in the atmosphere will now accelerate global warming in the short term, at least. With that in mind, that article you linked, Mahima, is starting to sound like a good idea for getting through the transition phase.

[Primula Baggins]

Except that we don't know what we're doing, and manipulating a chaotic worldwide system that has dangerous and unpredictable tipping points seems—well, "rash" isn't really a strong enough word. The best we can do, it seems clear to me, is to reduce the "push" we are already putting on the system.

[Faramond]

Only the conclusions are important. Anything that is contrary to the accepted conclusion is, of course, not science. We know that any study which shows natural causes for climate change is faulty, without looking at it or giving it a chance. And if it was published in a journal, then clearly that journal is not one we consider a legitimate peer-review journal.

And, like Intelligent Design, the theory that warming could be caused by other than human activity is on its face not a scientific theory. Just as one can't scientifically test the hypothesis that the origin of the species comes from a higher intelligence, one can't test the hypothesis that there are natural, not man-made causes for climate change. It's an attempt to smuggle religion into science! A most apt analogy, yes.

Global Warming skeptics are worthy of only contempt, of course. Denying global warming is like denying the Holocaust.

[axordil]

Faramond--

You want to talk about the conclusion being the important thing, it's PRECISELY the fossil-funded "skeptics" you should be looking at, because their conclusions were bought and paid for from the get-go. And contempt is too nice a word for what I feel towards them.

It will be interesting to see what they do now that their funding sources are moving on.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm glad there's someone who knows everything about the sources of all our information and our ways of thinking about it—about our educations, our knowledge, our scientific training, our ability to reason and draw conclusions from what we see—and can sweep it all aside in so few words. Very nice! Because it goes without saying that we are all wrong, if what we conclude is disturbing to the status quo.

[Faramond]

Right. We don't have to look at any scientific research that isn't funded by the right people. If you're funded by the wrong people, then you're automatically corrupt, bought and paid for. There really isn't any need to think.

[Faramond]

I'm glad there's someone who knows everything about the sources of all our information and our ways of thinking about it—about our educations, our knowledge, our scientific training, our ability to reason and draw conclusions from what we see—and can sweep it all aside in so few words. Very nice! Because it goes without saying that we are all wrong, if what we conclude is disturbing to the status quo.

Sorry, I don't get it.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood—I thought you were insulting my intelligence and that of the other posters who see the evidence for anthropogenic warming as persuasive. So it's just the climate scientists who are corrupt and misinformed?

[axordil]

If you're funded by the wrong people, then you're automatically corrupt, bought and paid for.

If you're funded by someone whose bottom line is threatened by one possible outcome of your research, your work is compromised at best. If that funding source has a history of cherry-picking results that suit their interest, "compromised" drops to "whorish."

It's the same as tobacco-funded lung cancer research. The underlying agenda of the funding agency is inimical to the possibility of actual science taking place, because everyone knows what the boss wants the results to be.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sorry for posting angrily. It's just that as Ax has pointed out, the evidence is in, and even polluters are jumping on board now. And even if the source of warming were in doubt or even if it had been proved to be natural, I don't see what that should do to our policies. If you're standing in a burning house, do you put out the fire, or do you argue about whether it was started by arson or a lightning strike?

[Faramond]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood—I thought you were insulting my intelligence and that of the other posters who see the evidence for anthropogenic warming as persuasive. So it's just the climate scientists who are corrupt and misinformed?

I never said all climate scientists were corrupt and misinformed. I would even guess that it's more likely that a researcher who is drawing non-global warming conclusions is corrupt, given the current US administration. But not all of those who come to this "wrong" conclusion are corrupt, which seems to be the implication of many of the posts here. As Ax says, they are bought and paid for, comprimised, no need to actually look at what their research is. Is it so hard to imagine that it could work the other way as well? After all, outside of the Bush Admin and oil funded research which conclusion is the one that will get you into serious trouble?

Look, I'm not the one who made the incredible claim that there were no peer-reviewed articles that questioned some aspect of man-made global warming, or who made the unsupportable analogy between ID vs. evolution and global warming. To me, that means you aren't willing to think about the issue, once you've made up your mind initially. Frankly, I find my intelligence insulted, Prim, when you endorse a comparison of me to an ID proponent. I will give the evil global warming deniers a chance.

OK, you see the evidence as persuasive. You know what, I do too, some of it. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the next step, which is vitually calling anyone who disagrees with you unscientific. That conclusion isn't supported by the facts, but I know what will happen if I post links or anything like that. It's not worth the trouble, when I suspect either the scientists will be dismissed as fringe or corrupt, or the source will be dismissed as "conservative" or "reactionary".

I think some climate change is caused by humans, by the way, if that wasn't already clear. Maybe nearly all of it, though I do doubt that. Climate change doesn't need humans to happen, after all, which I think nobody will deny. But I'm humble enough and aware enough of the immense complexity of global climate not to think I know all the answers.

I also think that there needs to be a huge cultural ( not politcal ) shift away from a waste society. One in which the true cost of things are measured, not one in which government or corporate government arranges our lives for us to save the future. I do not endorse these arguments from fear, which is what the Pascal's wager comes down to. Too many bad things happen when we try to motivate people with fear. It's in our economic, and even ... I don't know how to put this without sounding like a crazy tree-hugger ... spiritual self-interest ... to change from a waste society to something else.

I'm just really tired of all the holier-than-thou, liberal sanctimony that goes on here. Yes, I know I'm going to get into huge trouble for saying that. But I have to say it, because I've been feeling it beating down on me everytime I open one of these threads. If you guys want to drive me away, cleanse the board of any non-liberal sentiment, then fine. You'll be happier without me. You won't feel like your intelligence is insulted everytime I call you on your dismissal of anyone doesn't share your "correct" view. I know you don't see it as a dismissal. That's the problem. It is a dismissal, when basically you say either explicitly or implicitly that you have contempt for the other side. Such contempt is rarely called for, and is never ever helpful.

I enjoy hearing the liberal viewpoint, and in some cases I agree with it. But I don't enjoy it when the viewpoint comes with a codicil that any opposing viewpoint is invalid or wicked.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood—I thought you were insulting my intelligence and that of the other posters who see the evidence for anthropogenic warming as persuasive. So it's just the climate scientists who are corrupt and misinformed?

I never said all climate scientists were corrupt and misinformed. I would even guess that it's more likely that a researcher who is drawing non-global warming conclusions is corrupt, given the current US administration. But not all of those who come to this "wrong" conclusion are corrupt, which seems to be the implication of many of the posts here. As Ax says, they are bought and paid for, comprimised, no need to actually look at what their research is. Is it so hard to imagine that it could work the other way as well? After all, outside of the Bush Admin and oil funded research which conclusion is the one that will get you into serious trouble?

Look, I'm not the one who made the incredible claim that there were no peer-reviewed articles that questioned some aspect of man-made global warming, or who made the unsupportable analogy between ID vs. evolution and global warming. To me, that means you aren't willing to think about the issue, once you've made up your mind initially. Frankly, I find my intelligence insulted, Prim, when you endorse a comparison of me to an ID proponent. I will give the evil global warming deniers a chance.

OK, you see the evidence as persuasive. You know what, I do too, some of it. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the next step, which is vitually calling anyone who disagrees with you unscientific. That conclusion isn't supported by the facts, but I know what will happen if I post links or anything like that. It's not worth the trouble, when I suspect either the scientists will be dismissed as fringe or corrupt, or the source will be dismissed as "conservative" or "reactionary".

I think some climate change is caused by humans, by the way, if that wasn't already clear. Maybe nearly all of it, though I do doubt that. Climate change doesn't need humans to happen, after all, which I think nobody will deny. But I'm humble enough and aware enough of the immense complexity of global climate not to think I know all the answers.

I also think that there needs to be a huge cultural ( not politcal ) shift away from a waste society. One in which the true cost of things are measured, not one in which government or corporate government arranges our lives for us to save the future. I do not endorse these arguments from fear, which is what the Pascal's wager comes down to. Too many bad things happen when we try to motivate people with fear. It's in our economic, and even ... I don't know how to put this without sounding like a crazy tree-hugger ... spiritual self-interest ... to change from a waste society to something else.

I'm just really tired of all the holier-than-thou, liberal sanctimony that goes on here. Yes, I know I'm going to get into huge trouble for saying that. But I have to say it, because I've been feeling it beating down on me everytime I open one of these threads. If you guys want to drive me away, cleanse the board of any non-liberal sentiment, then fine. You'll be happier without me. You won't feel like your intelligence is insulted everytime I call you on your dismissal of anyone doesn't share your "correct" view. I know you don't see it as a dismissal. That's the problem. It is a dismissal, when basically you say either explicitly or implicitly that you have contempt for the other side. Such contempt is rarely called for, and is never ever helpful.

I enjoy hearing the liberal viewpoint, and in some cases I agree with it. But I don't enjoy it when the viewpoint comes with a codicil that any opposing viewpoint is invalid or wicked.

I apologize, Faramond. I see now that what you were saying earlier was an analogy to my comparison of this controversy to the ID/evolution one. I did not mean anything personal by characterizing the two controversies in that way, and I'm sorry for the apparent insult.

I was talking about the appearance of the debate in the media, not the qualifications or intelligence of people here discussing it. Regardless of the validity of the evidence either way, I at any rate see the scientific establishment largely on one side, and a lot of the really fervent opposition as not scientifically based (some conservative Christians, for example, who see global warming as real but a sign of the End Times, and therefore not to be fought against but to be accepted).

That's the analogy I intended. I do also happen to believe that the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong and getting stronger. I don't mean to say no intelligent person can disagree.

I hope you can stick it out here. I know for a fact that you are not the only conservative around; just maybe more willing or able than some to get out and defend your point. I merely would like to be allowed to disagree and to speak strongly, without being labeled as a sanctimonious fool.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I for one particularly value your participation, Faramond. I don't think of you as a conservative or a liberal; rather as someone who tries to think for himself. I find that very refreshing (even when I don't agree with you). And if you sometimes get a bit emotional about these debates, well, for me to say anything about that would like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Faramond]

I don't think you're a fool, Prim. I don't think you are in character sanctimonious either. I do find some of your positions sanctimonious, though maybe that's not quite the right word. I'm not surprised you find that description upsetting. Well, I'm sure I'm in the minority in thinking that term could be accurate about any of your posts. And I know some of my posts could be honestly characterized with worse descriptions with sanctimonious. I don't know what else to say about it. I just hate reading a thread and feeling like I'm killing puppies by stating a position or even by questioning something, based on the clear bright lines that have already been drawn.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is caused by human activity, and it's going to be getting very bad in the next decades and centuries. What should be done?

[Griffon64]

I hope you can stick it out here. I know for a fact that you are not the only conservative around; just maybe more willing or able than some to get out and defend your point.

I won't presume to speak for the Monster, but knowing him as I do, I won't say he's a conservative per se. It is jolly hard to slot people into one of those two boxes, anyway. I know that I end up being in the middle somewhere - conservative in some ways, liberal in others. I like to think of myself as a commonsensialist, though I sound like I'm tootin' a horn when I say that, and I'm aware of the fact that I don't know everything about everything - and I'd say the Faramonster is probably more of a commonsensialist too

I do know that he can be counted on to slice into any argument where people invoke statements that they cannot, in his opinion, back up sufficiently with what he considers real fact. That doesn't neccesarily make him the opposite viewpoint of whatever person's statements he's examining.

As for the topic at hand, I want to lift out this from Faramond's post, and say I cannot agree more:

I also think that there needs to be a huge cultural ( not politcal ) shift away from a waste society. One in which the true cost of things are measured, not one in which government or corporate government arranges our lives for us to save the future. I do not endorse these arguments from fear, which is what the Pascal's wager comes down to. Too many bad things happen when we try to motivate people with fear. It's in our economic, and even ... I don't know how to put this without sounding like a crazy tree-hugger ... spiritual self-interest ... to change from a waste society to something else.

Warning - long rambling personal paragraphs follow to clumsily back up my support of this point:

I am fortunate that I grew up in a household where both of my parents grew up in extreme hardship. My father, especially, went to school in clothes made from old maize sacks. Both of them know the value of hard work, and the value of anything material, for that matter. I was brought up to always look at something and think: "What did this really cost?" I wasn't brought up in any sort of hardship myself, because my parents worked hard, my father put himself through uni for two B degrees and got a good job, and they could provide for their two children when they decided to have them. But I was brought up with a frugal mindset, in the sense of "waste not, want not." I was brought up not to just start the car for a quick trip down to the supermarket. We bought groceries once a month, bought a hindquarter of beef once every six months or so and put it in the deepfreeze, went to the greengrocer weekly for vegetables and to the bakery for bread, also weekly. Meals were made from fresh products as much as possible, cutting down on the waste of pre-made meal packaging and the energy use to prepare, freeze and transport them ( which translated on our consumer end into those meals costing more, and my parents were concentrating more on the cost of the things, to be fair - the cost of things, and the outside garbage bin filling up before the week was done! ). Of course, mealtimes like that meant that my brother and I had to pitch in and prepare the food - put on the vegetables, or the rice or the potatoes or whatever was required for the evening meal if we got home first, and Mom got up ten minutes earlier to start the porridge for the family - but because that is what I was used to, and what I still tend to do, it seems natural to me.

We bicycled to school and to varsity, walked down to the store for any quick thing that may be needed. If you had extra-curricular activities, you took the bus there, or your bike if it was close enough and safe enough to do so. Sure, we lived somewhere where it was practical to do so, but we were still brought up to be careful about what we used. When you washed your hands at the sink you used the cold water tap - hot water only for dishes and your shower or bath, because starting the geyser needlessly wastes energy and shortens its life - and only at a trickle, too.

I therefore still operate by looking carefully at what I use, on the whole, and I'm glad that I was taught this way of life and find it second nature. I do not really see a reason while society as a whole cannot make this cultural shift and start becoming less wasteful.

EDIT: Oh look, that's what happens when you go reboot servers in between posts. V said what I tried to say too, and even Faramond chipped in.

*quick wave and sm00chie for the Faramonster*

[Primula Baggins]

Sharply reducing the rate of increase in emissions that intensify the greenhouse effect would be a start. I am not claiming that this would be easy or without economic or human cost, but the economic and human cost of runaway warming would be worse.

[Maria]

Regardless of what causes global warming, I think putting up a sunshade sounds particularly effective. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 090409.htm

Of course, if they overdid it, it might be tough to get the little spaceships to move out of the way...

[Angbasdil]

Faramond,

Your posts seem to be aimed, at least in part, at me. And I truly understand where you're coming from here. I absolutely am not an ideologue; in fact, I detest ideologues. I am, above all else, a pragmatist. I believe in what works. And I like to seek out as many different points of view from as many different sources before i make up my mind. Once I've made up my mind, I like to seek out people who disagree with me, because that's how you learn; by listening to people who tell you things you don't already know.

But every once in a while, I find that there really is only one side to the story. Yeah, I know it's impolitic to say so, and that the polite and proper thing is to give equal weight to both side of an issue. But sometimes, one side is right and the other side is wrong.
Either the earth is round, or it's flat. (It's round BTW.)
Either tobacco causes cancer, or it don't. (It does.)
Either global warming is real, or it ain't. (It is.)

These are not matters of opinion, they're facts. And I'm sick and tired of being demonized for being rude enough to say so. You say that there must be scientists with sound methodology and pure motives who disagree with the consensus. Well, find me some. Don't tell me. Show me. Because I've looked for a rational well-reasoned scientific argument against global warming, and it just ain't there. Sorry, but it ain't. I've done my homework. Like I said, I actually like to listen to people I disagree with. But on this issue, all I've heard is Rush Limbaugh saying that it's colder than average in Buffalo this week, so there must not be any global warming.
And yes, I do listen to Rush Limbaugh. Like I said, I seek out dissenting opinions.

So if you really think I'm just making this stuff up, or I'm just hearing what I want to hear, then back it up. I've been looking specifically for a documentary that refutes global warming, and is as compelling and as well-reasoned as An Inconvenient Truth, and I'm not finding one. I would appreciate it immensely if you could point one out to me.

Seriously, I really would appreciate it. But in the meantime, please don't accuse me of being a close-minded ideologue who willfully ignores contrary evidence until you can actually show me some contary evidence.

[Angbasdil]

Maria,
Rule #1 - If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to quit digging.

[axordil]

Maria--

So whom do you trust to control the world's sunlight?

Faramond--

Never said all skeptics worked for the oil companies and were thus suspect. I said all skeptics who DID work for the oil companies were suspect. There are a handful of independent and qualified skeptics in the field out there...and that's a pretty literal count. But most skeptics are not independent scientists, and most independent scientists are not skeptics. A good (and balanced, IMO) accounting of the good, bad, and ugly in the tally can be found at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... e_skeptics