5/29 Global Warming: It's not just a prediction anymore!
\_ It's not. I was shocked to see tangible effects when I was
in S. America last year. Most people will also confirm pretty
drastic climate change over the last few years there. -John
\_ Climate changes. That is not in dispute. The issue is if the
climate is changing mostly to due human activity or if it is
mostly due to natural causes and more importantly, "Is there
anything we can do about it and should we even try?"
\_ Whether or not climate change is due to humans, man is
certainly a major factor in ozone depletion, with
huge and tangible results in Chile, where people laugh at
you if you buy sunscreen < 40-50. There are also
enough related man-made factors (for example, if you are
into astronomy, you'll know that there are very few spots
where the view's not impacted by atmospheric -- particles,
not light -- pollution) that have arisen in the last 20-30
years to make one thoughtful even if you don't believe in
all them fuzzy scientists. -John
\_ I'm a big fan of clean air and not destroying the ozone layer.
(And clean water tables and non-toxic food, too). That has
little to nothing to do with the global warming scare. BTW,
last I checked SPF 35 reduces UV rays by over 99% so those
people spreading on SPF 5000 are wasting their money.
\_ It has nothing to do with it as far as you know. You
missed my point, which is that here are two massive
environmental phenomena largely attributable to human
activity, so it's not a far stretch to "the arguments
postulating human pollution as a major source of global
warming are plausible." Hmm indeed. As for SPF, it has
nothing to do with the quantity of radiation it blocks,
but rather with the time it effectively blocks it vs.
your skin's natural protection. That's fine, though, you
go ahead and hang out with SPF 35 the next time you're
outdoors in Australia/Argentina. -John
\_ Because humans create particulate matter which has a
regional effect we should assume humans create non-
particulate matter that has a global effect? Are
humans a plausible cause of climate change? Sure.
Does that mean humans *are* the cause of any current
climate change? No. Current global warming scarist
have no explanation for previous climate changes much
more extreme than anything currently claimed to be
going on. Nor do they have any scientific basis to
conclude that what is currently going on is more
than normal and perfectly natural drift in a chaotic
environment. As far as SPF ratings, I'll defer to your
SPF guruness and be sure to apply SPF 5K the next time
I'm in Australia or Argentina. Thanks for the tip.
\_ One thing for sure is that rise of CO2 concentration in
atmosphere is due to "human activites." And to think
we can continue to emit CO2 to the air without any
consequences is laughable.
\_ Do the math. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere
as a percentage of atmosphere is trivial. PPM is
"parts per million". You can figure out the rest.
I put "human activites" in quote because it is a misnomer.
The reality is that most of these rise in CO2 in
atmosphere is due to 5% of human population concentrated
in America and Europe. And right now, *EVERYONE* is
\_ So you think 1.6 billion people packed into a
relatively small area of China or 1.2ish billion
in India aren't responsible for a large chunk of
human created CO2?
\_ Please educate yourself about the subject. The
vast majority of human generated atmospheric CO^2
present is due to industrial uses, not from
people breathing. It is widely accepted that this
CO^2 is primarily from Europe and the US. The
argument is primarily about who is responsible
for this legacy emission and who should have to
bear the financial cost of paying for that.
suffering the consequences. The worse part is that our
entire global warming debate has concenterated on putting
the blame and the cost of curbing it squarely on the
developing nations. As rsult, I once an environmentalist
\_ You mean like how Kyoto is entirely about curbing
emissions in the US and EU?? What?
don't want to part of this Global Warming debate. Let
China and India pollute and freely emit CO2 for next 100
years, then we'll talk. kngharv
\_ Uh what? Why would you want China & India to
freely pollute? Are you being sarcastic? If GW
+CO2 is serious and human caused then it is truly
a global problem that *all* nations must take
action against.
\_ Yes, that is the "issue" that oil companies and the people
who love them are trying to get Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O'Reilly to keep bringing up. But it's no longer an issue
of serious scientific debate. -tom
\_ Of course it is a subject of serious scientific debate.
Good Science is not determined by political concensus but by
experiment and evidence. Nancy telling us she saw a melting
glacier is not proof of anything except how much tax money
she's wasting on personal junkets around the world. I wonder
what Nancy's carbon foot print is recently?
\_ Actually this is an unfortunately naive view of modern
science. Even the 'hard sciences' are dominated severely
by consensual narratives and cliques. The rational
response to the global warming debate is to bet on the
outcome. See here: http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html
-- ilyas
\_ Ok, readily granted that "modern science" is really a
crock and all about pleasing the grant sources but that
is precisely the reason we end up with bad science
producing things like Gore's movie or IPCC reports that
change dramatically every few years and people who hold
a particular perspective calling for the ouster from the
halls of science of those who disagree with them, using
holocaust like terms to smear them. It is precisely
this sort of activity that should give any clear
thinking person serious pause before swallowing junk
political science from the IPCC.
\_ Aside from distortions from the popular media,
political considerations, and funding sources, there
are two additional reasons to be sceptical about
are two additional reasons to be skeptical about
(any) claims on the global warming issue.
(a) The 'pundit effect' -- there is no penalty for
being wrong.
(b) Establishing causation is extremely difficult
even in 'relatively simple' domains like internal
medicine. I have some first-hand experience with how
causal claims get established in medicine and
epidemiology, and it's pretty atrocious. The
appropriate response to a causal claim in any
complex domain is extreme scepticism.
complex domain is extreme skepticism.
-- ilyas
\_ Nice red herring. There clearly *isn't* a political
consensus (except in the U.S., a consensus to do nothing
about it), but there *is* a scientific consensus, to the
extent that that term has any meaning. -tom
\_ Of course there is a political concensus. IPCC. By
definition anything written by political lackeys is
political. The sky is still blue even if you call it
purple. The IPCC being a http://UN.org is by definition
political. And where you get the idea that US has a
concensus to do nothing I don't know since there is
vigorous debate across the nation that has seen some
states, such as CA, individual counties, cities, etc
taking local action towards reduced emissions under the
name of GW. Seriously, stop reading KOS or whatever
and join Reality. You'll be happier and less bitter.
\_ Yes, you were witness to last wobble of earth's
precession and can attest to this as a fact. Oh wait..
No one alive was. It is every 26,000 years
\_ Oooooh! They've got a new "possible explanation"!
It's not the sun getting hotter any more? It's the
precession of the Earth? Wow. You a smarty.
Ye gods, this is awesome. google for "orbital variance
theory". Not nearly as amusing as timecube, but about
as clear.
\_ No. It is simply unknown. There is no explanation,
only hypothesis for previous ice ages and warm periods,
same as today. --didn't write precession comment
\_ and of course, the only truly reliable scientific evidence
is anecdotal. There's no way they could compute or measure
the effect of earth's precession, because none of those
damn scientists lived 26,000 years. -tom |
http://csua.com/feed/