Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,
I just googled a few more articles on the same subject, and even Dr Solanki (who conducted this research) believes that greenhouse gases are still a factor, as is the activity of the sun. He said the sun alone could not account for the entire climate change as measured by scientists. The rest of the scientific community seems to agree. Neither Solanki nor others have made conclusive assessments about which is the dominant cause or to what percetnages of warming may be attributed to the different causes, but they agree that this research shows that the sun was underestimated previously, and that this merits further research on the topic.

Not that this matters much since the US largely ignores the Kyoto protocol anyways.

Also, I personally never put too much importance on the problem of global warming as compared to other environmental issues. I mean - 1 degree per century seems like a small enough thing that we still have some time to research more. But at the same time, controlling auto emissions and air pollution should be common sense to some extent - just look at the Los Angeles skyline. But this said, I think the Ozone is a much more real problem, as are many other types of environmental pollutants.

Also, regarding the second half on your post - I’m not sure what you’re implying, and the Michael Crichton link is just plain weird - but you seem to be suggesting that people will have a hard time swallowing this new data. However, the story is linked as a top article on globalwarming.org - so your “faith in science” shouldn’t be questioned just yet.

The logic that follows from such news is SIMPLE!

If only a few degrees increase in annual temperatures can threaten a billion or more people living in coastal areas, and if the Sun is contributing to global warming, in addition to human activities, what are our choices? We can’t alter the Sun’s contribution. Thus, our only choice is to reduce our own contributions to global warming to counter the threat.

The logic is inescapeable.

One question David: Is there anything we could have done to stop the last ice age?

I think the entire issue of global warming is on par with the belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Believers think it must be true because of other ideological issues. Everything about the global warming crusade and its cataclysmic predictions can be boiled down to one central theme, that modern industrialism (and by extension capitalism itself) is wrong, a theme that existed before global warming theories. Before man existed there were climate changes. That’s what I am attacking here.

The fact that there is significant evidence that it is not man and his machines which are causing ‘global warming’ and still the doctrine of man-made global warming still must be addended to the story is telling. It is an accepted article of faith rather than a proved theory.

Everything about the theory is in doubt, yet we are asked to jettison our civilization in order to ‘stop this impending threat’.

No Eric, it is not a theory in doubt. Did you take a science class and create a greenhouse. I am a gardener and in the winter I grow crops under polyethylene which traps the suns radiant energy inside it as it converts to heat. Thus my plants don’t freeze.

Certain gases have been demonstrated in the laboratory to act in the same manner, allowing radiant energy through, but, not letting convective heat out.

I agree, there planet’s temperature is in flux, on geological time, it is always so. There is evidence a number of things are taking place, the magnetic poles are reversing, we are experiencing a period of increased sunspot (and thus radiant energy release) from the sun, and these are very likely major contributors to our planet’s undergoing change.

But, back to my original proposition. If we believe the earth is warming naturally, why should we be exacerbating the process when we have the technology to reduce our contribution to it? If we can retard the polar cap melts even by 25 years, over the next 100, we have the potential of saving trillions of dollars of loss due to coastal resettlements, land wars, water rights wars, losses of millions of acres in farming land around the globe especially around deltas.

It just makes sense to spend (increase the cost of doing business ) today to the tune of billions on the very real possibility that we can set back the cost of trillions by decades. We are talking about earth science here, and it is impossible to create a miniature earth in a vacuum and predict with great accuracy what will happen when one or two variables change. But, we can weigh the costs today and the costs tomorrow of likely scenarios and make rational insurance decisions in anticipation of less than optimal scenarios.

By my way of thinking there are two ways to deal with negative human impact on the planet. One is to return to preindustrial ways of life (That ain’t going to happen). And the other is to use capitalism, and free enterprise to develop technologies that the reduce or eliminate the negative impacts. The only way that will happen is if government’s set the standards that industry must meet. And the only way that can happen is if government’s educate the populations on the long term costs savings by increasing short term costs to offset, or retard negative consequences which will be far, far more costly if action is not taken now, and the future proves the window of opportunity was missed.

Eric, if you think scientifically, then your conclusion is no more definitive than ours. The matter has not been completely settled.

What has been settled is that Carbon Dioxide does have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature. You have only to look at Venus to see that. Venus is the prototypical greenhouse planet. But other factors come into play as well, and that, not any dispute as to the ability of greenhouse gases to raise temperatures in an atmosphere, is what makes climate science so controversial.

Atmospheric circulation plays a role. When we get hurricanes, winter storms, and regular old thunderstorms, we are seeing the atmosphere redistributing it’s heat.

The Oceans play a role too. One thing about water is that it can store a great deal of heat energy, and it plays that function in connection with the Atmosphere. This is what fuels hurricanes and other tropical storms. Let me digress for a moment and discuss a particular point about this.

Thresholds play an important part here. The rise or fall of average global temperatures by a degree can decide many things. Among them, the extent of the waters that will freeze as permanent pack ice around the arctic and antarctic, as well as the limits of waters that readily support and create hurricanes.

Coming back to the subject, these facts become important. Pack ice is bright white, more or less. It reflects light, raises the albedo, or amount of light the earth bounces back to space. As I explained before, Hurricanes are part of Earth’s way of redistributing heat.

It helps to see our atmosphere as an economy of sorts, with income and expenditures. We are fortunate that our economy is mostly balanced, unlike that of Mars or Venus.

That said, balance is a relative term. Between the lead-melting temperatures and pressures of Venus, and the near vacuum and desolately cold and dry environs of Mars, our ice ages and our warm periods are mild, our atmosphere stable.

But from our perspective? From our perspective, it is difficult to predict specific weather patterns with any accuracy two weeks ahead. Climate’s a little better, because one is trying to figure out general patterns of temperature and moisture rather than specific, but still the complexity and the sensitivity of the system is a challenge to those who would model the way it changes. Even the salinity of the water in certain places is of importance.

Our position is one of risk. The lack of understanding of our climate runs both ways. Global Warming is not a bet we want to lose, but its a bet your people seem willing to make for all of us. What we propose can be rescinded if we turn out to be wrong. regulations can be struck down, laws repealed.

But if we’re right? If we’re right, but the restrictions aren’t put in place, the results will be a shift in climate that can’t be rescinded. Human policy is reversible. Climate changes much less so. Which mistake do you think it wiser to make?

Eric, if you think scientifically, then your conclusion is no more definitive than ours. The matter has not been completely settled.

Precisely, Stephen. So why do we already have the suspect captured, tried, sentenced, and ready to be executed? There was more evidence that Iraq had stockpiles after stockpiles of WMD than there is that humans are causing global warming.

Our position is one of risk. The lack of understanding of our climate runs both ways. Global Warming is not a bet we want to lose, but its a bet your people seem willing to make for all of us. What we propose can be rescinded if we turn out to be wrong. regulations can be struck down, laws repealed.

But if we’re right? If we’re right, but the restrictions aren’t put in place, the results will be a shift in climate that can’t be rescinded. Human policy is reversible. Climate changes much less so. Which mistake do you think it wiser to make?

Human induced global warming is a human policy. Volcanoes have recently put out many times over the amount of ‘greenhouse gases’ than we have in our entire history, Pinatubo comes to mind, methane gas from the ocean floor, and yes indeed the sun! Moreover, most pollution effects are localized and some are a result of preindustrial practices, like burning wood in third world countries for instance. I find it interesting that smog alerts and bad air happens in valleys. Duh. It probably has for years, and there is likely little that could be done about that as a natural occurance. Might as well try to stop evaporation and rain.

Another problem I have with the ‘science’ of global warming is that there is not enough evidence to make definitive conclusions and yet it is a crusade of global proportions that puts forward major sweeping economic and societal changes that are by their nature meant to last hundreds of years in order to work. Now you’re telling me that such changes are minor and reversible? The entire industrial age is only 200 years or so. Not to mention that it could very well bankrupt nations, mainly ours, and the deep ecologists will get what they really want which is a return to primitive living.

There are theories in science, but there are many who seem to have already accepted these conclusions as fact and now work their way backward. The testing being done is based on running computer models which are not reality but approximations of a theory of reality. Human induced global warming, if there is such, is more likely caused by city streets and buildings in urban areas creaating permanent heat islands and I might say skewing the results. You may assume that they are adjusting for that but such adjustments are judgement calls. How much to adjust and for where?

Whether or not you accept the conclusion that man-made greenhouse gasses trap heat, reducing our dependence on greenhouse gas emitting internal combustion engines is a strategic imperative. Unless we’re prepared to actively militarily dominate oil producing regions, we need to get the monkey off our backs.

Kerry’s energy plan tackles both the greenhouse gas issue and the strategic scramble for oil. It’s a two-fer.

Precisely, Stephen. So why do we already have the suspect captured, tried, sentenced, and ready to be executed? There was more evidence that Iraq had stockpiles after stockpiles of WMD than there is that humans are causing global warming.

You vastly overestimate the CO2 contribution of volcanoes. From Scientific American:

There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Volcanoes have a greater effect on cooling the world than warming it up. They put sulfur aerosols and fine dusts into the high layers of atmosphere, blocking out sunlight.

I’m familiar with clathrates, I’m also familiar with the fact that releases of that substance are very rare. We’d know.

Moreover, most pollution effects are localized and some are a result of preindustrial practices, like burning wood in third world countries for instance. I find it interesting that smog alerts and bad air happens in valleys. Duh. It probably has for years, and there is likely little that could be done about that as a natural occurance. Might as well try to stop evaporation and rain.

The main cause of smog is a combination of temperature inversion and our pollution. The Temperature inversion, with a cold layer of air preventing warmer air below from escaping and diffusing its contents, is natural. But what man puts into that container is not. Smog is mostly man made pollutants.

As for localized pollutants, do say, which ones? To generalize that all pollutants will act the same is both illogical and unscientific. You would like pollution to be a local problem alone, but it’s not. Some heavier chemicals and particulates stay local, but there are plenty of complex chemicals that don’t. Freon is an example of that. That one gets carried up into our upper atmosphere and gets circulated world wide. Carbon Dioxide does not stay local.

As for societal changes, they are reversible because if a better model comes along that counters the notion that humans are adding signifcantly to global warming, we can drop those laws fairly quickly. Can we drop a climate change? Even if we drop our emissions now, the results of our current carbon output will have to play themselves out. To give you an idea of how bad this can get, the freon particles we banned not so long ago are still wreaking havoc in the atmosphere.

Whatever happens, for the effects of CO2 to stop, not only mus the CO2 be reclaimed, but we must also not be in a situation where other factors have started to reinforce the change that our emmissions started.

As for city streets causing increased warming, I think you should be a bit more cautious about playing armchair scientist. Here is an article that addresses the issue, and even adds some rather surprising facts Heat Island Effect

As for the question of solar variability, it may not be so simple as you state it: Global Warming Hypothesis- Solar Variability Theory

Your argument overall suffers from the major flaw that you are willing to accept only that science which is convenient to your cause, and that you accept it so uncritically. Yes, there are major questions as to the mechanism of Global Warming, it’s pace, and other factors. But these questions have their own questions attached. And you don’t ask them. If you want to approach this scientifically, you have to ask the questions, not merely accept somebody’s answers.

I am fully willing to accept the possibility that global warming is not real, or that its not the result of human activity. But there are compelling cases for it being a real phenomenon, and that we are creating part of the problem. Those questions cannot be ruled out arbitrarily.

In the meantime, the question pertains to how we want to find out the truth or the falsity of all this. I would rather we find out through a computer model, aided by years of research, than to have the question settled by mother nature. By the time Mother Nature settles this argument, if you are wrong we will be in no position to change the outcome or prevent the damage, and it will be a much costlier affair to adapt to the changes. If you are right, then the science will catch up to us much faster, and we won’t have to live through years of such deprivation.

I say it’s sounder to be cautious about the environment and its deterministic effects on our lives than highly variable and adaptable factors like human markets, societies and technologies.

Eric, at least you can’t be accused of sitting on the fence.

There has been no definitive answer either way with regard to global warming, but it has to be said that there is a growing consensus that would suggest greenhouse gases are having a negative impact on the planet.

And despite not having a definitive answer, it would seem prudent to proceed with caution, and try and limit the effect and thereby reduce any future problems.

As David said, the logic is inescapable. I also think there is probably a moral imperative involved.

I would venture, that it is both graceless and unprincipled to shit in one’s own nest, when you won’t be around to clean up the mess.

It is strange, Eric, that you are unwilling to accept this.

It seems that you are more bothered by the environmentalists, than engaging with the actual details/logic/danger of us damaging our environment.

I have to sorta agree with Eric on this one. My background is in physics. I am bothered by the absoluteness with which some discuss climate change. The key here is the word climate. Climate is a long term effect, read in thousands of years. We only have weather records dating back to the late 1800’s and prior to the launching of weather satellites the data is at best spotty.

It is interesting to note that I was discussing pollution with an Indian friend of mine here in Houston and was surprised by his comment that he liked that America was so clean compared to India.

I’m not quite sure what Eric is proposing here. Do you want to reverse Enviromental laws and have dirtier air and water?

Why do you believe that singled cell organism can think, feel and have spirituality? You embrace science on the one hand and reject it on the other. Hmmm, sounds like spin to me. Maybe killing babies with phosgene gas is morally O.K. as long as planned parenthood isn’t involved.

So what you’re saying is that all the clean air and water acts are pointless. Let’s allow manufacturers to pollute our air and water supplies. Let’s clear cut all the forests. Nothing we do can hurt the earth, so why bother green policies at all.

I lived in LA until I was twelve years old. Until we moved north, I had no idea that the sky wasn’t always a little brown except directly overhead. Why should the rest of the world enjoy that point of view as well?

Your argument overall suffers from the major flaw that you are willing to accept only that science which is convenient to your cause, and that you accept it so uncritically.

I am fully willing to accept the possibility that global warming is not real, or that its not the result of human activity. But there are compelling cases for it being a real phenomenon, and that we are creating part of the problem. Those questions cannot be ruled out arbitrarily.

What we have right now is an environmental cause masquerading as science. If, as you say, we cannot afford to wait until we know for sure then there are a lot more causes that will be forthcoming which will be so urgent we cannot wait to know the truth. Threatened calamity is not science.

Just put yourself in my shoes… imagine George Bush saying that Iraq is an imminent threat and we can’t wait anymore for inspections to find out what he has. Then you’ll understand how the argument looks when Al Gore endorses the movie, “The Day After Tommorrow” as credible environmental consciousness raising.

I say it’s sounder to be cautious about the environment and its deterministic effects on our lives than highly variable and adaptable factors like human markets, societies and technologies.

So far the environmental predictions have been wrong. The most strident being the most wrong.

It is a matter of record that Paul Ehrlich has a consistent history of failed predic- tions; a good source is the book Eco-Scam by Ronald Bailey (St. Martins Press, New York, 1993), with over two dozen references to Ehrlich. In his 1969 article “Eco-Catastrophe!” Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on.

In a July 1995 article in Contingencies, R. A. Dousette comments trenchantly that one of Ehrlich’s earlier books, The End of Affluence (1974), has “much of the comic quality of an old Marx Brothers film.” Ehrlich recommends stockpiling cans of tuna, “because periodic protein shortages…seem certain to occur…”, with the President dissolving Congress “during the food riots of the 1980s.” These food shortages would drive the United States to using insecticides so damaging to the environment that a horrified world would launch a nuclear attack on our country, in order to forestall environmental despoliation of this magnitude. The book is an endless catalog of failed predictions. Potential problems are treated as certain to occur and then magnified into disasters. There is not even the slightest acknowledgment of the possibilities imminent within human creativity and our problem-solving capacity as antidotes to Ehrlich’s dark and pessimistic vision. [sepp.org]

I am not saying everyone who believes in man-induced global warming is on the level of Paul Erlich, but you must admit that there is a good percentage of ‘greens’ who have an agenda beyond the scientific surface level.

I would venture, that it is both graceless and unprincipled to shit in one’s own nest, when you won’t be around to clean up the mess.

…I’m not quite sure what Eric is proposing here. Do you want to reverse Enviromental laws and have dirtier air and water?

…So what you’re saying is that all the clean air and water acts are pointless. Let’s allow manufacturers to pollute our air and water supplies. Let’s clear cut all the forests. Nothing we do can hurt the earth, so why bother green policies at all.

Bob Hope, Greg, and Michael,

I like clean air and water. There’s nothing wrong with passing laws to keep people from polluting. In fact, I dare to say the laws I’d come up with would be more draconian than you might imagine. Dumping chemicals in the water should be on par with assault and attempted robbery. Pollution is 1)Property damage, and 2) harmful and should carry the appropriate penalties.

Eric, there is considerable scientific evidence supporting human-originated forcing of global temperatures. Even that guy doing the solar variable study says that we’re beating the curve- that is, we’re heating up faster than our sun should be able to account for on its own.

It saddens me that you pick out the oldest, most extreme examples to use to discredit much newer, much more moderate models as we have today. I mean, your source there is thirty years old! Plus, it sounds like the more wackier of the environmentalists. He’s an easy source to beat up.

Look, the measure of a scientific theory isn’t how many wackos out there have built up loony esoteric theories on the subject, it’s what does the evidence say. The evidence says there is a great potential threat to be had from CO2 emissions. Now, The Day after Tomorrow is not exactly what I would deem scientifically sound. The book that this movie dramatizes was written by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. Those aren’t exactly names that inspire great confidence from me. Now, I like the fact that people might become interested in climate science because of this movie, I just hope they find more serious sources to learn their information from.

All in all, I don’t think draconian regulations will do everything. We need to have an apollo style engineering race to come up with technologies that will run greener. We need to employ already existing technologies to slow our consumption of gas. A year or so ago, Technology Review had an article on a special kind of electrical system in a car which would allow SUVs to run upwards of 40 miles a gallon- now wouldn’t that be nice? To no longer have people complaining about gas guzzling SUVs?

But unless we recognize this potential problem now, we may not be able to get ahead of it, if in fact it exists. If it turns out that our worst fears were unfounded, we at least reap the benefits of America having invented the new paradigm of automotive technology. One of our big problems in the Global market is that virtually every kind of simple, basic manufacture has been learned and coopted by some overseas market.

So, if we develop technology that increases fuel efficiency, if we take the lead on green engineering, in making it economical, we may end up reaping the profits. If the problem turns out to be real, and we aren’t the leaders in green technology, we will be left behind, in additon to suffering the economic damage that rising sea levels and changing weather patterns will impose on our coastal regions. I say, let’s not let our country be relgated to obscurity and obsolescence by natural history.

It is funny how much less skeptical Bush and his ideological fellow travelers get when they are talking about terrorism and WMD in comparison to environmental threats. In regard to terrorism, we invade another country on the basis of rumors and information from questionable sources — all to avoid the horror of “knowing that we could have done something to prevent it”. When it comes to global warming, no amount of evidence is enough, and we pretend that we are completely helpless. The logic of doing whatever we need to do to prevent catastrophe is completely absent.

So the arguement from the right on this issue seems to be nothing more than a backlash against environmentalist wackos. I don’t like them either. I don’t think the world is going to end in 30 years - or whatever they’re projecting these days. But regardless of their misstated facts, and reliance on unproved hypotheses- they are voicing concerns that are rooted in very real problems and concerns that are shared by our scientific community. Our best and brightest researchers are confirming that these problems exist to some extent and there are very simple counter-measures that can be made. I don’t think we should abandon such counter-measures just because it makes you feel like you are giving in to the wackos. They should have nothing to do with your decision making process.

Peezee- I have a friend of mine that we call PZ, but you could not be him. You are much too thoughtful!

I agree with your assessment. I don’t think Eric advocating polluting “because we can” as much as he is railing on the greens a little. I’ll change my mind if we hear of him fire bombing a Toyota Prius on a lot somewhere (if one stayed on a lot for very long).

The key to sound environmental policy is to understand the impact, both in cost and in benefit, of any regulation or policy proposed. This is missing from many of the arguments the greens make based as, I feel, they argue more on emotion than on logic sometimes. While I agree with their intentions (to make the world a beautiful place) their tactics and politics get a little extreme. Especially their scare tactics.

For my money, George, I think that sometimes, something else than our wallet must lead our decision making. The costs and benefits must include other criteria.

In the end, if we undervalue the importance of certain non-economic criteria, unforeseen economic problem can accompany it.

Woody, priorities are most evident by what an administration does, not what it says, as you aptly point out.

All I have to say is global warming is only 1 of 1000’s of the effects from emissions, chemical contamination from wells, etc…
Your 1 argument on 1 item of 1000’s does not solve the issue. You propose no solution yet you spend all this time researching something that you think will justify ignoring the problem all together.

I suggest researching the site below,
it will help you understand all of the causes of emissions, and many other environmental problems we face as americans.

www.ewg.org