Odl Dan , How ?

that is insane...not only that but a terribly transparent tactic to equate the free market system with Nazism and the murder of millions of jews...talk about propaganda and rhetoric to fit an agenda...its not even hyperbole because that suggests there is even a vague hint of truth that you are exaggerating Its just downright dishonest!

 

I agree. That's the nuttiest post ever made to this forum, completely devoid of reason. Tom has no credibility from this day forward.

 

Out of all the good points Tom made I find it disingenuous to focus on one perhaps "stretch" of the direct cause of a certain historic happening while ignoring the rest of his points as well as the overall message. Come on guys, you three are the most sane voices in this forum and we aren't even in political alignment with each other on many topics. What about the gist of the message?

 

Interesting that you can't see the connection! It's an extreme example of course... of free market economics becoming tragically entangled with a totalitarian regime, but is nonetheless an example of the deleterious operation of the "invisible hand" I'll explain:

Hitler took over the chancellory of Germany during a period of economic woe. Industry was having difficulty and he needed money to finance his efforts to cement control. The SS was basiclly an armed corporation outside the jurisdiction of the military whose primary function was MONEY. In a calculated move, the Nazis decided to target the Jews because:
1. There was a latent anti-semitism that could be fostered in the public to support the program
2. The Jews controlled a great deal of the banks and assets in Germany. Seizing their assets could therefore be of huge benefit to the Reich.
3. Industry needed labor and lots of it. By enslaving an entire subset of the population the labor could be available at at very cheap rate... with the wages paid directly to... you guessed it... the SS.
4. Once every asset was stripped from them, including their labor, all that was left was to get rid of the evidence so that nobody would be left to seek reprisals.

Let's face it... it made complete economic sense from that particularly twisted viewpoint! It is one of the world's single most horrific case of an economic policy so devoid of conscience that the most horrid things imaginable can be done in support of an economic goal. You've called me nutty and insane because I simply showed why the Nazis did as they did. It was not out of racial hatred... at least not at first. It was for money and could only have been done because the quest for money was held as the highest value... above right and wrong, or respect and dignity, or even honor and duty. When gold rules the heart then this is what you get.

 

I have to disagree with you, Moen. It's more than one stretch. It's out of touch with reality. The gist of the post is that the ability of people to conduct economic transactions freely and voluntarily caused everything from the killing of native Americans, beating of workers, the Nazi holocaust, the dust bowl, global warming, a 30 foot rise in the oceans, a drop in fresh water aquifers, and the extinction of a variety of marine creatures. The suggestion is that if only we had enough government to ensure that nobody conducted an economic transaction without permission, none of this would ever have happened. Now, I know you don't believe all of this. I suppose that under a world-wide totalitarian government, there would be fewer people, less prosperity, and therefore less energy usage. It might still be getting warmer, however, since the earth is emerging from a "little ice age" that I believe extended from about 1350 to 1850, and since the energy output from the sun since 1940 is the highest its been in 11,000 years [a couple of other 'inconvenient truths'].

There will always be people out there trying to frighten everyone into giving them absolute power in return for the promise to protect the population from every imaginable and unimaginable catastrophe, and this is just the newest wrinkle in the old trick. God willing, there will also always be people dedicated enough to the individual liberty granted by the Creator to resist their tyranny.

 

Tom,

You are correct that I can't see the connection. There is no connection. The Nazis were not the product of free market economics. Whew!

 

Exactly, one could easily use the same tactic with any form of government gone horribly wrong...it would be equally erroneous but one could say:

Soviet Socialist Republic

Stalin responsible for the deaths of 9 million +

Socialism is responsible for the death of 9 million +

Socialism = Bad in every form

Now of course everyone knows that it wasn’t socialism that was responsible for 9 million deaths...it was a totalitarian regime posing as socialist. Under this logic so many awful things could be placed on socialism...but that would be completely dishonest...

 

I don't believe that is what Tom is saying. If you took it to it's extreme meaning you might draw that conclusion. Disregard for the environment, workers rights, lusting after Native American lands, and countless other excesses of the quest for power and money certainly are well documented in our history and many other countries histories as well. You can't deny that. What you call "people conducting economic transactions freely" without government intervention I assume is just a fancy way of saying let those that want to exploit the environment, the worker, and our shared natural resource do whatever the heck they want. If people were acting as responsible citizens of their country, no government regulations would be necessary. That would be great but how many of us believe that if people are left to their own devices they would act responsibly? Many do and there are many that don't.

I take it that you don't believe that we are contibuting significantly to the warming of the globe with our various human activities. The evidence to the contrary is pretty compelling but if you aren't going to believe, well then I guess there is no convincing you otherwise. That's fine. I wouldn't expect everyone to come to the same conclusion given the politics of the debate. I believe as I do and you have another view. I think this debate will be over soon enough and I hope you are the correct one. It sure would be convenient for the rest of us. :thumb:

 

A REALLY inconvenient truth....

Okay, so you don't like my use of certain examples of economic models because they are offensive. Well guess what... I chose those particular ones BECAUSE they are indeed offensive. I am offended and I hope you are too. Just because you can't see the connection doesn't mean it's not there.

You know Cloudsweeper... it's easy to close your eyes and not see the facts in front of your nose. You can easily choose to read only the rantings of right-wing pundits with political agendas to grind, and thereby close your mind to valid information. Your understanding of the issues surrounding global warming does not appear very complete. I taught a college course with a segment on this and required my students to be able to thoroughly discuss at least six different influences global climate change on the final exam essay. I'm not going to bother trying to teach you how to interpret the scientific information because you wouldn't listen and it would be a waste of time. Suffice to say that the information is out there and if you seek you will find. The issue is very complex... and yes, the sun is warming by a very small fraction of one percent per century... and it's been doing so for much longer than a few thousand years. But this has been studied very closel, and it's now very clear that the warming of the sun, while significant... is NOT NEARLY enough to account for the observed increases in global temperature... whereas the measured increase in greenhouse gas emissions clearly DO closely model the actual temperature rise. I suggest you have a great deal of homework to do if you want to express an informed opinion on the subject.

As a beginning I encourage you to watch AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH with your entire family. You may scoff all the way through it if you like... but you need to watch it. I assure you the facts are real and the concerns are justified. Each of Gore's assertions is based on the conclusions of numerous researchers, published in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you have access to a university research library and want to work your way through the math you can read about the methods of data collection and check their conclusions. I have done so in several cases that I wanted to investigate closely. There are no secrets here... no crystal ball... just the plain facts... and it's all laid out in front of you. Take a look... but first... open your eyes and quit prejudging what the outcome will be.

 

I am not offended at the reality of your examples...I am offended that you think so lowly of the people here to try to pass that tripe off as truth!! Socialism is no more the cause of the 9 million deaths at the hands of a russian dictator any more than the free market is the the cause of 6 million jewish deaths. Germany under the nazi party was facism in which the means of production was coopted by the totalitarian government...it was not capitalism, free market, or anything even close to what we have today... It is a sign of dishonesty is all...

you proceed in the assumption that everything you put forth is correct and everyone else needs to 'open thier eyes', reminds me of c-span and washinton journal....so many people know the 'facts' and so many people need to 'wake up'. You accuse people of agendas and not seeing the truth because we have bought into lies...I bet you never once though that you might be guilty of the same exact thing. You seem to have a far more ugent need for what you say to be accepted as fact than anyone else here. Have you ever thought that YOU are the one prejudging? That I and others are looking at both sides and trying to wade through the crap to find the nuggets of truth?

As for Mr. Gore and his movie. I have seen it. It came on cable while I was in Norway and I watched it. I have also read quite a few scientists refuting much of what is put forth in that movie. I am sure you will say those gentlemen have an agenda while Gore and those who see his message as the plain truth have no agenda but to save us all for impending doom.

I have read many scientists who claim that such predictions are over stated and indeed many who agree that global warming is a fact have sited, very adeptly, proof that shows how adaptable the ecosystem and evironment is. How climictic changes are common and cyclical but to be expected.


Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun
.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

· The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
· The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
· The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
· The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
· There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
· The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation.
· Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
· Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
· Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
· There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
· Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
· Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wont go into a big cut and paste on the different articles and studies I have read that dispute Gores movie and often call it 'laughable' and 'dishonest'. I am not sure exactly WHERE I stand on this issue but certainly...if the scientific community is so terribly split, how can you be so sure you are right? Maybe because YOU havent opened your eyes to the other side of the arguement? I tend to believe that we DO have an effect on the ecosystem if not a grave effect on the environment...but I am still reading and taking in the different arguments. I have my eyes open and I am open to sound scientific advice. Like you say...I hope, if indeed this is an emergency and the sky is falling, we are able to change...but then again...in my daily life I am not a major factor in polution...and try to do my part, if just for the reasons I dont like to polute...

 

Ah well....

Actually I have been concerned about the problem of being duped by alarmist interpretations of data. Therefore I took it upon myself to investigate the claims of those who dispute the claims of anthropogenic global warming. I'm not cutting and pasting here... I'm telling you my own experience. I looked at the data and found it compelling. I have no doubt that Gore slanted his view somewhat to make his case... but the core of the argument is sound. As he pointed out... there are LOTS of popular press articles disputing Global Warming... but virtually none in the scientific literature. If there was a real debate over the science of the studies... the science literature should be split. It is not.

And for sure, global warming will not mean the end of mankind (despite Lovelock's rather dire predictions)... but it will cause extreme difficulty. A few places... Canada and Russia for instance... may actually come out of it with a net positive as the grain belt moves north. The deserts of the American west are predicted to expand their range eastward to the Mississippi or further, hugely impacting the ability of American farmers to supply staple crops.

Of course... on any long term time scales the Earth is quite capable of self-correcting such things. We're due for a new ice age to begin in another couple or five thousand years... but long before then we'll have burned up all the carbon fossil fuels and come back to some sort of stasis. The earth itself cannot be harmed significantly in that way... but we can do great harm to ourselves. The human population of the earth, which is already beyond a sustainable carrying capacity, will probably drop by 70% to 90%. No big deal right? Free market in action! Yee haaa!

 

Tom,

I don't think your examples are offensive. I think they're about as far out on the fringe of reality as they can get. If the population declines by 90%, it will be through the restrictive actions of government that prevent economies from producing and distributing the goods and services necessary for life, and not due to the free market. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, and I think enough information from both sides of the issue is presented here for any reader who cares to to draw their own conclusions, so nothing more really needs to be said on the matter. Some people are comfortable with individual liberty. Some people never outgrow the childhood need to be told what to do. I feel sorry for your students.

 

Sorry Cloudy but this response is really beneath you. If I were to draw a conclusion at this point I'd have to say that very few of Tom's points were ever refuted by either of you. I would reiterate his best point in my opinion that there are many articles out there that fall on your side of the debate but ALL of the science is clearly and unequivically on the other side. Now if you tell me that the worlds scientists are incorrect on this matter I'm going to have to give you the stinkeye something awful.

dd: Sorry, I had to do it!

 

Thats just not true...all of the scientific literature does not back it up...I can link or cut and paste all day to scientist who refute what he is saying. Or I could just say, like tom, that I have thoroughly studied the subject and can assure you that its just not true that the scientific community is in any way of one mind on this matter. Are they right? I dont know...is Gore right? Not sure either...Tom even admits that Gore, like himself, uses scare tactics or should I say 'slanted his view' to make his case...why would one need to 'slant ones view' if all facts and all people agree?

He also infers that he, unlike others, has looked deeper into it and without doubt he is correct in his views. I have discussed this topic ad nausea on other forums and have looked into the case rather thoroughly so I KNOW that all scientific data does NOT in fact back Global Warming (or should I say it does not back any drastic change to date).

Tom doesn't seem capable of making a point without doom and gloom unsupported predictions such as predicting the death of 70% to 90% of the population and then, again, tying it to the free market...all the while, again, ignoring the same outrageous claim I made between Socialism and the death of more than 9 million people...because he cant refute it, because he knows that human beings, whether they live in a free market system, or under so called socialism, are always capable of distorting that governmental system through greed, for power, etc...

He makes claims that some how the free market system is responsible for the deaths of millions of jews when certainly we ALL know Nazi Germany was NOT a free market system...it was a Fascist dictatorship where all means of production were co-opted by the one party government.

I will not bicker more about it...I am more inclined like cloud, to say I have made my case and let it be...leave it that there is a difference of OPINION but that Tom has not in any way presented empirical evidence save 'I know'.

How do I personally feel about the subject? Probably somewhere between the extremes as usual. I feel there is evidence that there might be effects to the ecology (but then the ecology is ever changing and always has been, old species die, new ones emerge) and there might even be slight effects in the environment, so slight that it could easily be written off by MANY REPUTABLE scientists as natural warming and cooling cycles. I feel that it is ALWAYS best not to pollute and to do what one can to keep from contributing to any problem that may indeed come from our actions. Recycling, driving smaller vehicles, conserving, looking for alternatives, etc...I DO not believe it is as cut and dry as he puts forth nor do I respond well to scare tactics (especially ones that I feel are far over dramatized). For me, the jury is still out, I read compelling arguments on both sides when they are put to me in straight forwards terms with no bias...with no 'slant'...and I will continue to look at both side of the issue in a calm rational manner.

Now I could easily typify our friend tom with pictures:



but instead I will say that its GOOD that people like him are out there...along with the other side, we in between can slowly sift through the rhetoric and find a healthy middle ground.

 

Moen,

This whole thread has outlived its usefulness, but lets give it one last try. It isn't my intent here to refute anything. It can't be done in this type of forum. What are we going to do? Trade links to sites that support one opinon or another? How would someone go about "proving" that free market economics DID NOT CAUSE the rise of the Nazis, the dust bowl, and killed the native Americans? If you've taken a logic course, you already know that it is impossible to prove a negative. It would be as if I accused you of at least once watching "American Idol" on TV, then asserting that if you can't prove beyond all doubt that you've never watched it, you are wrong. I would suggest, instead, that Tom has proven nothing with his positive assertions, backed by nothing. He has put forth a radical theory or two with no evidence at all. The burden of proof is always on the side making the positive assertion.

Regarding climate, I am not an expert on the science but I know a little about what motivates people and how groupthink causes errors. The usually "scientific" argument runs - the earth is warmer, there is more carbon in the atmosphere, man caused the carbon, therefore man caused the warming. This isn't even close to following the scientific method because no cause and effect relationship has been proven through controlled experimentation for the hypothesis. Going from memory, I believe the University of Colorado [I may be wrong about the school] has done a lot of work debunking the myths about global warming and demonstrating that the change is entirely within the natural cycle the planet has been following for a long time. Naturally, they dont' get much press. The earth is expected to get warmer and the number of hurricanes are expected to increase at this point in the cycle. There have also been some experiments demonstrating that increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases the cloud cover to the point where there is a cooling effect combined with increased plant growth. I wish I could recall the source, but it really doesn't matter because Tom will say all of his sources are good and all of mine are bad. A pretty balanced but somewhat out of date analysis of global warming is presented in a documentary, "The Greening of Planet Earth" if you can find it. They point out that computer modeling climate change is a worthless exercise because there are too many variables, and the programmer is forced sooner or later to put in some coding that assumes that more carbon = higher temperature or the model won't demonstrate the warming effect. Another thing to consider is that most of the scientists who have signed onto the "humans cause global warming" bandwagon also derive a significant part of their income and obtain their research grants from the same organizations/foundations with a vested interest in pushing the theory as fact for political gain. I'm not saying the scientists are lying, but many are under enormous career pressure to come up with the "right" answer. I suppose you could have gotten most of the world's leading scientists in the time of Galileo to sign a document asserting their support for the observation that the earth is the center of the universe, particularly if they received their positions and income from the same folks in charge of the Inquisition.

More important than any of this is the question, "who decides?" The Constitution doesn't give the federal government of this nation the power to impose any of the restrictions Tom and you suggest we all need on our lives and businesses. If you and Tom seriously want this sort of control to exist, do it the right way and work for Constitutional Amerndments instead of trying to implement back-door totalitarian rule, with your side doing the ruling, of course. Didn't you and Tom ever learn these things?

Anyway, I stand by my statements and retract nothing. I'm a little surprised at your level of support for Tom and his theories. Usually you're a bit more skeptical and demand at least a small about of evidence. But like I said at the beginning, this discussion has pretty much run its course, so I won't be responding to the inevitable responses pointing out all of the fatal errors in permitting people to keep the freedom God has given them.

 

Well Drus, I can't claim to be an expert on the topic of global warming and I doubt any of us here are. Even if one of us happened to be an empirical scientist that studied in the field of climatology, it would still only be one opinion base on one persons work. All I can tell you is what I personally believe based on my own experiences.

It seems to me that most or at least a huge number of the people that are denying the degree to which we are effecting the climate have a vested interest in believing that side of the argument. People like Coal burning plant owners, the auto industry, and just about any other large scale producers of hydrocarbons you can name. Then there is the other side of the argument in which I see a bunch of scientist (an understatement) that don't have a vested interest in being right about the damage we are doing to the planet. If they turn out to be wrong, it actually damages their reputations not to mention their careers as scientists.

Now if I think about this logically, who am I most likely to believe? Regardless of what I might want to believe about global warming i.e. Everything is going to be just peachy for me and my children; I have to go with the group of minds that have the knowledge, the empirical research, and a certain lack of vested self-interest when considering the possibility of global warming. You see where I'm coming from? I guess it just comes down to who ya gonna put your faith in.

 

fair enough moen Although you know I disagree that it is just plant owners and the auto industry that do not completely agree with what has been put forth on the subject, we most likely agree on the important aspect of the whole debate that it is best to take steps not to harm the environment. Who can say if it will be just peachy...if life has taught me anything, it has taught me that it is seldom just peachy...regardless of the subject...nor have I ever claimed it would be.

You may have gathered already that I am not one for 'faith', I am a skeptic and, without doubt, that does not pertain to just one side of this issue...Know that I respect your point of view though, as I believe you speak from your honest opinions. You are the 'Ying' to my proverbial 'Yang' Take care.

 

Skepticism is good Drusus, and an open mind. As Moen said, I think you should be skeptical of people who put forth a scenario from which they personally benefit. At least some of the studies you mention are strongly political, not scientific. Some of the science which is accurate is politically skewed in interpretation.

For instance... yes it's true that the amount of variation in climate that we're discussing has ocurred before and can be considered as part of a natural variability. Does this mean that we shouldn't be concerned as the citation suggests? In the Eemian interglacial period, about 125,000 years BP, the global average temperature was as much as five degrees F above the 1996 baseline and ocean surface levels were about ten meters higher than they are today. All quite true. The thing is... ten meters of ocean level rise was no big deal to humans at the time because they were few and had no permanent infrastructure. If you can just move your skin hut a few hundred yards farther from the ocean then it's not really any big deal. Today we have close to 70% of the world population and trillions of dollars worth of permanent infrastructure within ten meters of sea level. The earth may not care, but we as humans have a vested interest in not upsetting the apple cart.

The climate stability of the last ten thousand years has been the longest period of stability within the range of our capacity to measure with any precision... about one million years. As such it is unusual, and some anthropologists argue that the rise of complex human civilization occurred in this interglacial BECAUSE of that stability. In other words, ancient humans were not stupid, they could have developed agriculture many times over the last million years, and may have attempted to do so. But if the climate changed drastically every hundred years or so and hammered your feeble attempts into dust you'd get discouraged. This time we got lucky, rose beyond hunter-gathering... and now face a return to a more unstable and capricious climate. Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it's not bad news!

It's also true as you say that it's unclear scientifically whether CO2 is the cause of temperature rise, or it's effect. CO2 appears to move in lockstep with temperature and the data is unable to detect a noticeable delay one way or the other. The best interpretation appears to indicate that it's both... that is... a rise in CO2 will result in higher temperatures by internal forcing... or a rise in temperature due to external forcing will result in a rise in CO2 concentration. That would suggest a positive feedback loop! This means that the climate is an inherently unstable system and subject to wild swings (as observed by the appearance of glacial/interglacial periods). Again, these are natural variations... but with the added twist that for the first time in the history of the world, the human population has grown so large as to be able to affect the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, we are playing a dangerous game... our entire civilization is dependant on the continuation of an unusually stable climatic condition that has occurred just once in a million years... and we are CHOOSING by the forces of the free market to endanger that fragile stability.

Now it could well be that the period of stability was about to end anyway... that is difficult to predict. But our actions have created the virtual certainty of that instability.

And Cloudsweeper... I think you've purposely misinterpreted much of what I said. Perhaps we are using different interpretations of what the "free market" means. To me it means "the pursuit of wealth above all else, unrestrained by regulation, religion, or morality". By that definition the excesses of the Nazi regime is certainly a prime example. Perhaps you are using a different definition of the term and therein lies our fundamental difference of viewpoint.

And please don't try to intimate that I am an opponent of liberty! You have purposely ignored every single suggestion I've made as to how individuals can help change things. I don't think government regulation is necessarily the solution, though cooperation is needed and it's tough to get people to work in concert without either some sort of oversight OR some goal of mutual benefit. Our founding fathers of the United States were from many different independant states and had divergent viewpoints on many things. They brought together thirteen governments in voluntary cooperation in order to collectively counter a threat to their mutual existence. The very existence of the United States as a nation is an example of collectivism in action! My purpose in posting to this thread was to suggest that we all face a similar threat to our mutual existence and that we therefore have a cogent reason to cooperate in solving that problem.

Best wishes to all. Tom

 

4th IPCC report due out soon

Since the gist of this thread seems to have become mired in a debate over whether anthropogenic climate change is real, I'm posting a link the the main website of the Intergovernmental on Climate Change (IPCC) which is due to release its 4th report in May 2007. The report has been six years in the making, with over 450 lead authors from 130 countries. The science is impeccable and very heavily reviewed for accuracy. If you're interested in the actual facts about the earth's climate, please check it out http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

 

never mind...