TTI Forums

Amarantus Cerularius: Can you define "excess" in the context of pollution in relation to global warming?

What we are arguing now, is what that excess is.

Excess water is also bad for you, LOTS OF EXCESS WATER.

Its an infinite term unless you concrete it down to reality.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote: And who owned the river and what parts? Was it private or public?

Aye there’s the rub. The river was not privately owned. The pollution was coming not from a specific identifiable and quantifiable source, but from thousands of sewer lines connected to hundreds of thousands of emission sources. Even if the river had been privately owned (an odd concept) the owner would have been fighting every other member of society (including the judge) and gravity to boot. How many lawsuits would it take for the river owner to perfect and enforce his property rights? A solution via torts seems impossible to me.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote: About Sorphid's comments about the consumer's choice: I agree. People seem to assume that buyers are robots in the face of what they buy. This is completely not true. I'd say 10-20% of people at my work don't shop at Walmart because they import everything from china.

You make my point Tolthar. Yes there are certainly consumers that will elect to pay a premium for added societal benefit (Altruists – we Objectivists usually consider these people to be misguided.) But by your number 80 to 90% of the consumers could care less whether the products they purchase were made in a slave labor camp or a toxic waste dump. (I’m exaggerating here for humorous effect).

In reply to the nice graph that Tolthar has posted above. This is indeed a very long time scale. There are several things I consider as I look at data with this time span.

Its likely that the composition of the atmosphere was not constant during this time. For instance water is a relatively new (on that time scale) constituent in our atmosphere.

Also consider volcanism. I think its fair to claim that the degree of volcanism declines as the earth ages.

While the graph does estimate CO2 levels, what about atmospheric temperature? Could it be that the earth was a hotter place in that ancient history? Thus reinforcing the "green house" theory.

And what about life? Would we be able to survive in the identical manner that we exist today, under those ancient conditions? I’d guess that we’d have to make some substantial changes, if we could live at all. And then we are right back to the global warming debate…

http://www.seoexploits.com/?s=guesses

The first part will be declared as "Ad hominens" but the second part actually touches real evidence.

For instance: why is mars experiencing the same warming up we are?

Also, most graphs look at the last 500,000 years, try looking at 5 mil ago:



If you put the co2 graph with the temp graph, you will see that temp changes always come first. Not that correlation means causation, but its worth looking at.

Lasty, I'll end with a quote about science in a free market: "No problem, no funding".

Tolthar - please take what I am about to print as an honest appeal to spend some time examining how you proceed in reasoned argument.

I have never, in any debate, been handed such a heavy caliber loaded weapon as the site to which you linked. It conclusively proves that one needs to research one sources carefully, before taking anything one reads on the Internet seriously. It also demonstrates why, when discussing a scientific phenomenon, one should proceed to a website about science, and not someone with an obvious ideological bias.

Even though you did not quote them, I'd like to go over the blog author's various 'myths' of global warming as a display of what _not_ to do if you attempt to have this argument.

1) We will ignore the large Ad Hominen introduction, as Tolthar made an effort to point it out. Nothing there is even worth commenting on. The juxtaposition of the now infamous 'Iraqi Intelligence Officer' and 'Dire Global Warming' statement is, at best, worthy of a smirk, and certainly unoriginally as the rest of the below...well, that would be rude.

2)

The Earth is 1, 2, 5 or 10 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago.

Truth: At most we’ve had an average 0.6 degree C (and probably closer to 0.3 degree C) increase over the last 100 years.

No source cited, no evidence given. Just a hanging statement from the author. Might as well have told you the sun would be indigo tomorrow.

Always cite logical premises and reasoning before reaching a conclusion.

3)

I know Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring because it’s warmer here in _____. I know it’s warmer, I can feel it.”

Truth: Just because it may be warmer where you are, doesn’t mean that the Earth’s temperature is changing globally; and it certainly does not mean that any climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Anecdotal testimonials in a microcosm are not scientifically valid

The above is quoted as proof of my own non-bias in examination. This is, perhaps, the one and only hope we have that some sanity exists in the author. It is an actual true statement.

4)

There is evidence that a rise in CO2 has led to a rise in Global Temperatures throughout millions of years of the Earth’s history.

This one has a special place in my heart. I encourage you to go look at the graph's the author posted about this one. In what is probably the most hilariously ironic portion of his rant, he states that the two graphs are 'proof' that global warming is a hoax, and that carbon dioxide levels on Earth actually _trail_ warming periods.

What I want to draw your attention to is the source notation on the graph - they were taken from an article in the the journal Nature, authored by a climatologist named J.R. Petit.

As luck would have it, I happen to familiar with that paper. What I find amusing is that J.R. Petit gave an interview about that paper, which has been cited 967 times (#3) amongst Geosciences papers in the last decade. Here is what he had to say about the interpretation of the _whole_ paper, including these graphs, as related to the current concern about Anthrogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions:

http://www.in-cites.com/papers/Jean-RobertPetit.html

Question: In this paper, one of your concluding remarks is that "Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide and methane] seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." Would you please elaborate on the implications of this statement?

J.R. Petit: With industrial development and anthropologic activity, massive burning of fossil carbon as well as intensification of agriculture released exponential amounts of CO2 and CH4 over the last 150 years. Present atmospheric composition well surpasses all maximum concentrations from the ice records over the last 420 kyrs (30% more CO2, 300% more CH4).

This makes a permanent atmospheric cover over the globe which prevents the natural cooling of the earth’s surface and making it so the heat is always "on." A new climate equilibrium is expected but we have no analog from the past climate (except maybe at the time of the dinosaurs!). This raises questions for the future climate and the consequences.

Bold is my emphasis.

Please re-read the above, and re-read it again and again until it sinks in.

The author of Tolthar's blog citation has pulled a pair of graphs out of a paper that SUPPORTS the idea of human-caused global climate change, taken it completely out of its context, and presented it as 'proof' against the same human-caused global climate change. It is a 100% bonafide, deliberate, IN-PRINT, deception. A LIE, PROPOGANDA, FALSEHOOD.

5)

GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 5 Receding Ice Sheets is proof that anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.

To put the above quote in proper context, the author then links a couple of pictures of receding ice sheets - on Mars; this would, no doubt, be the source of Tolthar direct question.

I'm going to try not to belabor the point of this too much -

1) Yes, the Sun is going through a period of slightly higher activity. This phenomenon is actually well documented in Earth's climate history. Those same ice cores giving carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can tell us about solar activity. In fact, the variation of solar output is already factored into the climate modeling function. It's part of those error bars I was talking about earlier. Do you seriously think that climate scientists forgot to factor the Sun into an analysis of changing climate patterns, and only global warming deniers were smart enough to consider it? You really do have a low opinion of sciencists. Unfortunately for you, the people you go to for your scientific citations apparently don't understand enough science, or english, to know the difference between a paper in support of the theory of anthrogenic human warming versus one that is against it.

and

2) About the lag in carbon dioxide concentrations _after_ tempurature gains on Mars. I'm fairly certain you are aware that there are significant differences in both the climate of Mars, and it's atmospheric makeup, and that of Earth. In the polar icecaps of Earth, the ice is composed primarily of water. At regular Earth tempuratures, carbon dioxide is in gaseous form in our atmosphere (whatever isn't trapped by the carbon cycle and sequestered in the oceans or crust).

On Mars, the polar icecapes are comprised of dry ice....that's frozen carbon dioxide. At regular Mars tempuratures, carbon dioxide is either a solid or a gas. So if the Sun enters a period of increased activity, the amount of carbon dioxide in Mar's atmosphere will increase, because it is being transferred from solid to gaseous form.

For the same explaination to work on Earth, our own polar caps would have to be composed of solid carbon dioxide. If that were true, none of us would exist to talk about it, because it would be too cold for human life to exist here.

I hope you now understand why these two examples bear absolutely no relation to each other, and global climate change activity on Mars really doesn't explain much about what is going on in the Earth's case.

Finally - in case you are still wondering about the cycle of carbon dioxide in Petit's paper - the reason there is a carbon lag in that graph, and it is cyclical, is easily understood. During warmer periods on Earth, there is more life. What you are seeing is the natural carbon cycling of plantlife between warmer and cooler periods. What is important is that this cycle has been broken by the industrialization of the human species - as Dr. Petit explains in that paper.

Finally, I'd like to post Tolthar's quote so I can finish off with my 'wisdom'.

Lasty, I'll end with a quote about science in a free market: "No problem, no funding".

Absolutely true - so long as we have no problems, there is absolutely no reason why we should spend our time, or money, learning any truths about the universe or how it functions - especially if those truths (knowledge) might help us with a real emergency down the road. Instead, we should pretend we don't need to prepare for anything, and DIE the next time something _big_ happens. See how well that worked for the dinosaurs!!!


AT

In reply to the nice graph that Tolthar has posted above. This is indeed a very long time scale. There are several things I consider as I look at data with this time span.

I hate to say it Musashi, but you have wasted several insightful remarks on what is most likely another shame graph taken out of its context by a global warming denier site. Since it isn't sourced, there's no way to verify anything about what it purports to demonstrate.

That having been said, many of your points are not only logically valid, but are in fact demonstratable scientific fact.

The composition of the atmosphere wasn't constant over time - the emergence of plantlife 3 billion years ago fundamanetally shifted a huge portion of carbon from the atmosphere to the oceans and crust through natural biological activities. It is, in fact, that very same carbon we are reintroducing to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels - which are nothing more than the metamorphosed remains of ancient organic life. In a way, our industrial pollution can almost be thought of as restoring the toxic primeaval atmosphere the planet had at it's infancy (which, by the way, at one time supported _only_ plant life - so unless you gain your sustenance by photosynthesis, you might want to consider the effects of 'restoring' the old carbon concentrations).

Volcanism is actually pretty stable, over the course of the planet's history - the result of residual heat in the core left over from the Earth's formation. If volcanism were to decline in a very significant rate, it would be fatal to life on this planet. If you want to see a planet where volcanism has stopped...look at Mars. The interchange of heat between the Earth's core and its upper crust is another of the 'engines' that keeps the planet warm, along with solar radiation.

Glacial ice cores, and the study of organic fossils supports the assertion that the Earth was a warmer place in the past because of the increased levels of carbon dioxide. One of the potential reasons for the ascendency of warm blooded mammals in evolutionary biology was the ability of such species to adapt to the gradual cooling of the planet. Again, for those who think that restoring the carbon dioxide levels to their ancient limits is 'no problem' - it took _millions_ of years for humans to evolve on this planet - the result of a very slow, gradual change of biology we call evolution and natural selection. We adapted to an environment very similar to the present - higher oxygen, less carbon dioxide. If we were to restore the old levels in hundreds instead of millions of years, we'd never evolve fast enough to keep up with the change.

All of which goes to Musashi's last question - the truth is, restoring the carbon dioxide level to their ancient concentrations _will_ kill us eventually, because we are evolved to live in an environment at the _present_ carbon dioxide level. Warming the planet quickly is good for the insects, biological plagues, and dinosaurs, NOT for us.

AT

This is an interesting sentiment. And one where I think Objectivism breaks down – environmental regulation. Any form of environmental regulation takes the “free” out of free market.

So when you claim that the market can address the issue of pollution - I’d have to disagree. Markets are in the business of efficiently transferring goods and services, not social engineering.

Actually, I came across what I consider a rather compelling argument that free markets will _never_ address pollution and environmental dregradation while reading about a transdisciplinary subject called Ecological Economics.

In all current modern economic theories, an un-utilized resources has no value. A tree has no value until it is cut down and turned into paper, furniture, etc. A river has no value until it is dammed for electrical power, diverted for drinking water, or polluted as the result of other industries using the water within it.

Since an un-utilized resources has zero value, the value of utilizing it (cutting down the tree, polluting the river, etc.) will always be greater than the value of leaving it alone. Therefore, all economic activity under modern regimes will always work to degrade the environment, because all modern economic regimes serve one purpose - to maximize profit.

Modern economics truly is opposed to all environmental activities.

Now, Ecological Economics is an attempt to place a value on un-utilized resources, based on the natural functions they serve - something that modern economics never accounted for in the previous valuation. Since clean water is valuable as a resource for drinking, and untapped forestland helps strain pollutants out of rainwater, creating fresh water supplies, untapped forestland can be considered to have a value equal to the cost savings of cleaning that water under a different process, or, perhaps, equal to the value of the reclaimed water itself. The subject is still in its nascent formation - trying to combine modern economics, environmentalism, biology, and other subjects, but I think it's a step in the right direction. If pollution has a cost, and natural resources have a value _in and of themselves_ in an untapped setting, then the new economics could rationally function both as a free market AND as environmentally conscious.

AT

Arakasi wrote:Modern economics truly is opposed to all environmental activities

In another thread, you argue that organizational bodies are composed of groups of people, and that those people are who are morally responsible for their actions, not the group itself.

In this example, the 'economy' in question is really a group of people, consumers, who are opposed or indifferent to all environmental activities.

So if the pillaging of our environment is being done with the consent of the people, who are empowered to stop it whenever they want to by refusing the goods and services produced by the harmful activities in question, and are free to boycott the employment of said despicable industrialists, and they don't... Then what?

I've seen some compelling actions that can be taken in an objectivist society to combat pollution in this thread. Legal action against any economic activity that results in demonstrable harm to others through pollution, for example.

Tolthar wrote:If it was private, the blame could of been put somewhere and the court system should fix it.

What else can you do short of forcing upon an unwilling populace environmentalism at gunpoint?

Arakasi wrote:
Modern economics truly is opposed to all environmental activities


In another thread, you argue that organizational bodies are composed of groups of people, and that those people are who are morally responsible for their actions, not the group itself.

I must correct your misunderstanding here. The use of the words 'Modern Economics' in the above is a description of the 'philosophy or science' of economics - the concepts that describe economic behavior. Because economics, as a science, is interested in the maximization of profit, it is diametrically opposed in its aims to that of environmentalism, which, currently, appears to de-emphasize profit in favor of protecting natural resources from utilization.

A Modern economy - the people, institutions, etc. that function under the theoretical model of economics - is a different story. In that case, you are quite correct - the people are moral actors. But whether particular actions are moral or immoral depends upon their own philosophical understanding of those terms. If they are Objectivists, they many consider their actions to be moral when damaging the environment, because they are using the resources for production. Someone with a different philosophical bent (Environmentalism), might consider the same behavior immoral. Who is right is a matter of deep philosophical contention.


AT

Lots to reply to, but its getting late, so I'll just reply to AT's main post for now:

1) Unless you assume that everyone tries to be moral and never is bias, it is always good to look at intentions. That is the reason for what you call "Ad Hominen".

Communism can be "proven" through numbers and statistics very easily--because of stuff like where people think correlation is the same as causation. Therefor, I would be EXTREMELY weary of anything Karl Marx says. That is the reason for the beginning of it and our analysis of the IPCC. It is merely a claim at their morality and their search for the truth to set oneself up for what is next.

2) I decided to make my fingers useful and look into this myself. Most graphs I find agree with it.

4) Tell me if I'm taking this right: since he is for global warming I can't use facts as facts to suggest otherwise if they came from him?

5) So you are saying that global warming on mars would happen faster since much CO2 gets put into the air at a higher exponential rate. How does CO2 increase temperature again? I understand that dark particles in the CO2 gas could maybe make the planet soak up more heat, but then it doesn't even need to be CO2 for that matter.

Does it make the sun reflect less rays or something? I read through some of the IPCC stuff but it was kinda bloated and hard to find this exact point (if it was there).

1) I have a low opinion of scientist today, yes--but I'm trying to keep to the facts here. (do not take this as a personal attack, it isn't. I don't want to see you in the emergency room from your head exploading... 3 times)

2) You make a good point that CO2 could become a problem for human life eventually. I don't know about causing the earth to warm, or positive that its all about human pollution, but humans do not live off of CO2. But this doesn't seem to be what the global warming people talk about from the articles I've read...

The last rant about my quote from the blog: I still think it is right and you are assuming that it is talking from an Empiricist point of view. You can't take reason out of the picture. When did "future problems" not fall under "problems" again?

It seems interesting to me that the conversation has revolved around relatively transparent dense gases like CO2. I know there is an abundance of data regarding gas concentration. Environmental matrices (like ice cores, sedimentary layers and fossils) lend themselves to the study of gases. But what about the aerosols?

Dust and soot are far more reflective than the gases. Could these forms of pollution be the largest contributors to the warming evidence that is being observed?

I know that the pm10 (particulate at 10 micrometer) alerts we have been experiencing in southern California in the summer are due in large part to dust storms in the plains of China. And the dust storms have become more extensive as Angora wool production has expanded, a man-made phenomenon. And pm10 is only tracked due to its tendency to permanently lodge in the lungs. The much smaller dust particles can remain airborne for great lengths of time, weeks months and even years.

To me it seems like the climate change conversation extends well beyond simple gases.

musashi wrote:I know that the pm10 (particulate at 10 micrometer) alerts we have been experiencing in southern California in the summer are due in large part to dust storms in the plains of China. And the dust storms have become more extensive as Angora wool production has expanded, a man-made phenomenon. And pm10 is only tracked due to its tendency to permanently lodge in the lungs. The much smaller dust particles can remain airborne for great lengths of time, weeks months and even years.

OMG, change of topic: BOMB CHINA!!!

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:OMG, change of topic: BOMB CHINA!!!

There is so much dirt in the air it is a dust explosion waiting to happen..

Lots to reply to, but its getting late, so I'll just reply to AT's main post for now:

1) Unless you assume that everyone tries to be moral and never is bias, it is always good to look at intentions. That is the reason for what you call "Ad Hominen".

Communism can be "proven" through numbers and statistics very easily--because of stuff like where people think correlation is the same as causation. Therefor, I would be EXTREMELY weary of anything Karl Marx says. That is the reason for the beginning of it and our analysis of the IPCC. It is merely a claim at their morality and their search for the truth to set oneself up for what is next.

My discussion on point one was attempting to get you to look at your own sourcing of data with _discernment_. If I were arguing your side of the debate, I would never have used the source you did, because the irrational bias of the author is so prima facia obvious that everything following that introduction is completely suspect. At the very least, such obvious bias _demands_ a careful examination of each and every statemenet made by that author for factual correctness. It is possible to deal with inbuilt bias and sift facts out of it, but you have to be careful and you have to take the time to do the research. Otherwise, you will look foolish.

If you feel you have evidence that the IPCC is biased, attacking the source isn't the answer. Ad Hominen are _always_ a logical fallacy because of the nature of their construction. They tell you absolutely _nothing_ about the value of the statements made by the source. Some of the material might be factual, some might not. The Ad Hominen does not affect that value. Only careful discernment allows you to separate the facts from the bias.

Your statement on Communism is very important to point #4, so I will get back to it.

2) I'm glad you found evidence you consider satisfactory for those numbers, but you still haven't presented it for scrutiny. I have no reason, based on the experience of the thread so far, to trust that the data you are referring to is accurate. Simply telling me you believe it is not an argument. If you have evidence, present it so it can be reviewed and discussed.

4) About the graphs - take a look at your very own statement on Communism above:

Communism can be "proven" through numbers and statistics very easily--because of stuff like where people think correlation is the same as causation.

You may have heard the statement before that 'Statistics can prove anything'. Give me the opportuntity to generate 5 random data points, and I can create just about any relationship between them I want. That is why, when discussing any grouping of data points (such as a graph), it is vitally important to understand the _context_ of the data, including how it was collected, and what it is meant to demonstrate.

Look at this chart: [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FSM_Pirates.png[/url]

This chart purports to support the idea of global warming, and suggests a coorelation between the increase in global average tempurature and the decline of the number of active pirates in the world. It is an accurate graph - the data points making it up are all numbers which can be verified by direct observation. It's obviously fallacious - there's no logic behind supposing such a coorelation. But what is also important about this graph is its _context_. It's not meant to be serious. No one would use it to try to make _any_ kind of serious argument about global warming, for or against.

If you are going to use a graph of data points taken from another source, it is important to keep them in context. Not only has the author not supplied the context, he has actually 'created' a context completely opposed to the original context of the graph. This is a deliberately deceitful act. Further, because no context is given for the graph, it loses discernable meaning. It becomes just a graph of data points, which can be proported to 'prove anything'.

I'm not convinced that either the author, or yourself, is actually aware of what that graph demonstrates. It's being used to imply something very specific - that global warming is the cause, not the result, of changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. But can you explain how it does that? Can you tell, just by looking at the graph without context, that this is a demonstration of a natural carbon cycle? Nothing in the graph mentions Petit's reason for including the graph - that the carbon cycle has been interrupted by human activity. The graph is being used to perpetuate an inaccurate and incomplete view of _present_ scientific facts.

When you use facts to deliberately paint an innaccurate view of present reality, it's a lie - not proof of your point. You cannot use facts that run deliberately _against_ your point, just by trying to hide their context. If you want to use that graph to prove your point, you must supply the _entire_ context, and then demonstrate why the researcher's own conclusions are wrong. If you could demonstrate an actual flaw in the researcher's intepretation, then that data might be strong evidence in your favor. But by trying to hide it's context, all you are doing is lying to yourself.

5) Your question about Mars suffers from another important problem - the Martian atmosphere is many times less dense than that of Earth. So while it is true that global warming, during periods of increased solar activity, does increase in rate on Mars because of its makeup, that increase is statistically insignificant, because there's so little atmosphere in the first place. Also, this trend will reverse very quickly when the solar activity recedes, because of the physical conditions on Mars. Some of the gasous carbon dioxide will return to ice. On Earth, the amount of greenhouse gases are not just determined by weather patterns. Human activity is artifically keeping the concentration higher because we are constantly burning fossil fuels.

Again, I strongly suggest that trying to imply similarities between global warming on Mars and global warming on Earth isn't going to get you very far, precisely because the conditions involved in the two systems are so radically different. You are effectively arguing apples and oranges - sure, they are both round, and they are both fruits, but their differences strongly outweigh their similarities.

On the subject of CO2 particles - I think you are going to confuse yourself if you think of CO2 as 'dark' - it's a transparent, odorless gas. The reason it is referred to as 'dark' if because it is very good at absorbing light wavelengths at specific energies. Most important in this discussion is the absorbtion of photons at the infrared wavelength of light.

Infrared radiation is used synonymously with 'heat' in common parlance. The true relationship between energy, heat, and radiation is a bit more complex (take up the study of thermodynamics if you are really interested) but, for the purpose of our discussion, it is approximately accurate to use them interchangeably.

Solar radiation comes into the planet at a wide variety of wavelengths, and either passes directly through the Earth (if it has _very_ high energy - like X-ray radiation), or it is absorbed by matter in its path. Through quantum mechanical processes, a portion of that energy is re-emitted by the matter in the form of infrared photons - heat. That heat is then transmitted back out towards space.

Before it escapes the Earth's atmosphere, some of that infrared radiation is absorbed by atmospheric gases, such as Carbon dioxide. The process repeats, sending the infrared photon back to Earth to be reabsorbed and re-emitted again (imaging a plastic ball on a ping-pong table being batted back and forth between matter at the surface and gas in the atmosphere).

The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more reflected photons are reabsorbed and re-transmitted to the planet. (A greenhouse gas is defined as one that is very efficient in absorbing and re-emitting these infrared photons). This continuous absorbtion and re-emission is what keeps the planet at a relatively stable tempurature. Without any interference, the planet's tempurature reaches an equilibrium where the amount of continuously reabsorbed photons is stable (any infrared photons that escape the atmosphere are replaced by incoming solar radiation). The average global tempurature is a reflection of the total amount of energy represented by that stable amount of photons. If green house gas concentrations go up, the amount of infrared photons being reflected goes up, and the overall average tempurature increases. Less energy coming in from the sun is escaping.

1) About your opinion of scientist - My concern is that what you are present as 'facts' are not facts at all. They are unsupported opinions, or deliberate lies.

I could falt your source for these failings - it's obvious the author is neither a scientist himself nor a discerning consumer of scientific information. But in as much as you are using this terrible source as 'support' for your own arguments, you cannot be rendered blameless. As a rational being, it is incumbent upon you to research your sources and chose only reliable, reasoned ones. We can't all be scientists ourselves, but if we are going to make scientific arguments, we had better at least know how and where to find _good_ scientific info.

2) I am not trying to conflate the problem of global warming and carbon dioxide poisoning, but rather trying to divorce anyone reading this ongoing debate of a very common sentiment amongst global warming 'deniers'. There is a perception amongst deniers that human activity has _zero_ effect on this planet's environment. As such, they flatly refuse to even entertain the idea that global warming might be human caused. The argument I am trying to make in my example is simply that it is utterly irrational to believe that human population has no effect at all. A simple thought experiment demonstrates that human activity can have an effect on this planet, to our severe detriment. Expanding on that simple thought experiment, we might image burning only a portion of the available fossilized carbon in our crust. Such an effect might not be fatal, but it would certain not be _zero_.

Once you completely eliminate the idea that human activity has _sero_ effect, the question is not IF human activity causes some affect on this planet, but instead _WHAT_ effect does it have. What is the level of its severity. Starting from that position, one can then go on to a rational examination of human activity, the chemistry of carbon dioxide, etc. and evaluate _evidence_, wherever that examination leads. Starting from the position of a die hard denier, no rational examination is even possible.

As to your last 'rant' - "future problems" are an undefined concept. You never know what a future problem is until it actually manifests, in which case you are suddenly dealing with a "present problem". By that point, if may be too late to study and solve the issue before "problem" turns to disaster.

Human beings have evolved something unique on this planet, the ability to reason and _anticipate_ the future. We understand that problems can arise quickly, and be very dangerous. Rather than waiting to tackle them when they arrive, we do everything possible to prepare for them in advance. We even work to resolve problems we _can't_ anticipate, by doing everything we can to simply increase our knowledge about the whole universe. You never know when pure scientific research may yield something that appears trivial at first, but has major implications and uses 'down the road'. I believe in the pursuit of 'pure research' - I think it serves a vital function which is not accounted for in a 'funding only problems' approach. Your quote, in its narrow context, appeared to me to present what I would consider a dangerously short-sighted view of the pursuit of knowledge.

AT

O.o your post are getting huge...

I'll talk more later, but here is a link that shows both the temperature change as being small, and also what you were saying about infrared rays:

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar ... gure03.ppt

O.o your post are getting huge...

Ask five questions, get five answers - ask two questions about each of those, you end up with ten answers.

I always try to answer ever question that is asked of me in a scientific discussion, because I enjoy passing on what I have learned. But, with any scientific discussion, there is a lot of information that needs to get passed along. You can't just sum up complex science principles like 'how greenhouse gases work' in a single sentence.

My real concern is - are you understanding both the principles and the reasoning behind each explaination? Do you agree with them, or do you find a fault somewhere in the logic? Have I changed your perspective or your mind on any those subjects, or do you have some counter-examples you'd like to present and discuss?

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:My real concern is - are you understanding both the principles and the reasoning behind each explaination? Do you agree with them, or do you find a fault somewhere in the logic? Have I changed your perspective or your mind on any those subjects, or do you have some counter-examples you'd like to present and discuss?

I have done more research on the topic in the last two days then you might think actually. The problem I am having though is shifting through the media mumbo jumbo. There is alot of "humans are so evil!!!" out there about the topic. Also, people with very little data and alot of the green crappy talks I hear--as well as the other way around.

I'll probably take some more time to read through the IPCC (or at least skim) with what you have told me.

I have a question to you though: Assume that there is a problem and it is largely human fault (which I'm still not sure), but assuming that, do you think government should do something about it. If so, what?

One of my main problems with many many supporters is that they try to appeal to the government instead of inidividual consumers.

have done more research on the topic in the last two days then you might think actually. The problem I am having though is shifting through the media mumbo jumbo. There is alot of "humans are so evil!!!" out there about the topic. Also, people with very little data and alot of the green crappy talks I hear--as well as the other way around.

I don't question at all that you are doing research - just be sure to check your sources

And you are absolutely correct - I have come down on the side of the majority of scientific concensus on this one, based on the examination of _good_ evidence I've found. There is also a metric ton more _bad_ evidence on the side 'supporting' the theory of anthrogenic warming. You must apply the same tools to protect against bias.

I'll probably take some more time to read through the IPCC (or at least skim) with what you have told me.

Good - simply examine the evidence on facts alone. Forget the source, sift out the bias, and subject the actual data to rational examination.

I have a question to you though: Assume that there is a problem and it is largely human fault (which I'm still not sure), but assuming that, do you think government should do something about it. If so, what?

One of my main problems with many many supporters is that they try to appeal to the government instead of inidividual consumers.

I do believe the government can and should do something about it - after all, one of the duties of government is to protect the lives of its citizens. If a few citizens, acting morally or not, do something which results in the deaths of hundreds or millions of people, isn't that something that needs to be stopped? A person can act morally _and_ still cause a disaster. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

The question is 'What should government do?" and "How should it accomplish it?". There are both moral and immoral ways of addressing this potential crisis. If you want to argue process for resolution, that is one thing. What I would not accept is that _nothing_ should be done, if the data supports the theory that we are potentially in danger.

To give you a concrete example - I am in favor of a temporary cap on emissions. The reason is not because I am a luddite or hate my fellow human beings and their productivity. It is because I look at this potential crisis in the same way a trauma surgeon looks at a dying patient. The first thing you do is stabilize the patient - only after the patient is stable do you look to long term treatment. Sometimes, it's necessary to amputate a limb to save a life. We may have to 'amputate' our emissions a bit to make sure we don't cross a threshold on CO2 concentrations that ends up being fatal.

But human beings are resourceful. There's no reason why we can't think our way out of this problem. I happen to believe that capping emissions, even temporarily, will not only create a safeguard, but will spur innovation. People will look for a new way to do things, with less carbon. The ones who work it out will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

Free marketers will say 'that kind of innovation might occur without caps'; I am not willing to take the chance that, in the interim while we wait for the market to do its work, we might cross a threshold from which no technology will preserve our habitat. I'm not much of a gambler, when life is the stake. If our best scientific data tells us we need to do something _now_, then we must act, even if it is painful. I hope that the market will give us solutions sooner rather than later. I hope we are not close to a dangerous threshold, and I wish sincerly that human productivity doesn't need to suffer because of our own short-sightedness. But there is a difference between wishful thinking and reasoned action. If my reason insists we must do a thing, no matter how painful, in order to maintain life, then we must do it.


AT[/quote]

I don't think any restriction by the government would make a significant difference. You cap emissions now and you will see all factories move to china. Since humans have free will, it is hard to assume some deterministic outcome from things that concern their choices.

Assuming it was an immediate problem, I don't think this government could do much against it without putting VERY STRICT restrictions on the economy. I'm talking, ban outsourcing. HEAVY taxes on distrubution centers (that buy from overseas) and basically extreme statism. That is the only way the government could _force_ people to conserve in that manner.

Now, if the government did not put restrictions as such (on anything economical), what you would have is people looking at their choices very closely. People are taking for granted the freedoms that government have taken away from them. I know most people I work with think that they don't really need to worry too much about pollution because government will eventually take care of it. Where do you think that ideology come from?

It is a rutt that the current government has gotten us into.

Now think about a market where people actually read labels, look into things deeper, and are forced to live by: "think or suffer". A society where those that think rationally are rewarded instead of condemmed. I think pollution things such as this would fix itself by consumer choice. (I still have not enough research on this so I am still going off my assumption).

So take government how it is now: the only way I think to fix this problem is to dramatically increase choice, then human made CO2 levels would fix itself.

So in my opinion, the environmentalist's end goal is not moving towards getting rid of pollution, its to restrict choice and hurt our standard of life. I don't know what they _think_ they are doing and I don't really care that much.

In my view, there is only one way to fix it, and that is to give people a choice: reason or suffer the consiquences--and don't bail people out when they choose the later. DAMN YOU BEN BERNAKE!

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I don't think any restriction by the government would make a significant difference. You cap emissions now and you will see all factories move to china.

I concur China and India also refuse to comply with the Kyoto protocol, and its carbon limits. They claim that they have not had the degree of benefit from the mass consumption of oil that that Europe and the US have enjoyed. By capping these two most populous counties, we would in effect be suspending them in an under-developed status.

I’d also like to remind everyone that a few years back, the US and Europe banned CFCs (Freons). They were banned because the had a catalytically destructive effect on ozone in the upper atmosphere. The up shot is that I had to pay more for my new car and new refrigerator. The added cost paid for the more complex compressor used to pump HCFCs. And The HCFC refrigerant systems are not as efficient as the Freon based systems so I pay more to run these systems.

Guess what you can still by the Freon-based systems. They still build ‘em in China. China doesn’t give a damn about ozone. They just want the most effective, most cost efficient technology they can get.

Same situation with emission controls on vehicles …. Non-existent in China and India.

It seems impossible that every government could agree on legislative solutions to be applied evenly in all countries (these guys can’t even provide a clear definition of what constitutes torture). And even if international laws were universally approved, I’d beat serious money that in India and China there would be ZERO enforcement.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Can you support any of the ad hominens you are making above with actual evidence?...You attack the authors, not the data or analysis. You imply the process is biased, but offer no support. Both are logical fallicies, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. This fallacy of reasoning...

No, none of these are logical fallacies.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:You state the scientist are not competent - what proof do you offer?

What about Dr. Paul Reiter, a leading entomologist? In his report for the House of Lords 2005, he says of the section dealing with entomology that "the amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors....not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject!...ill-informed, biased, and scientifically uncacceptable." And on the third report (2001) he says "report listed more than 65 authors, only one of which...was an established authority on vector-borne disease." And the two of them "repeatedly found ourselves at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements." And on the fourth report (2007) he says that "only one of the lead has ever been a lead author, and neither has ever published on mosquito-borne disease." No wonder since he also found out that IPCC criteria has "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of _the worlds top scientists". Only after threating to sue IPCC did he get his name removed from the third report.

Or what about Dr. Christopher Landsea, and expert on tropical storms, who also withdrew himself from the fourth report. His reason for this he says was because "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Or take Dr. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. In their report on IPCC they found that it broke 72 out of 89 principles for scientific forecasting, a field that they are experts on. "The climate modellers have no concept of what it means to forecast".

Or what about the Wegman-report, where experts on statistics concluded with the same. On Mann's hockey-stick they concluded that "overall, our comittee believes that Dr. Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis". NAS-report about it also gave support to Drs. McIntyre and McKitrick against Mann. Briefly put, Mann's hockey stick is trash, and IPCC is still using it.

Or check out climateaudit.org, written by Dr. McIntyre. This should be enough.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Again, can you sight specific sources for the above (I'd personally like to research them myself) - the majority of respected scientific journals, research institutions, and mainstream journalism all relate the opposing viewpoint - concensus continues to grow, not retreat.

For books, Claude Allegre _a Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet'')_, Jean de Kervasdoue _Les Precheurs de l'Apocalypse'' (``The Doomsday Preachers'')_, or Onar Åm _Kampen om Klimaet_, are all very recently published books from scepticists. For journalism, any norwegian newspaper atleast. For the research institutions, as I mention Uniforum, the internal newspaper for the employees at the University of Oslo, has had a discussion going on for several months now. The discussion has been taking place between employess at Cicero, the center for climate research at the university, and employees in related sciences. The popular-scientific internet-magazine forskning.no (research.no) also have a balance between sceptics and believers. And there was not this big a quantity of it for only as little as a year ago -- so in those areas the sceptics has either grown, or they are finally getting their side of the issue presented in these mediums.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Can you support any of the ad hominens you are making above with actual evidence?...You attack the authors, not the data or analysis. You imply the process is biased, but offer no support. Both are logical fallicies, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. This fallacy of reasoning...

No, none of these are logical fallacies.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... n&ct=title

Ad Homenin -
fallacy--(Latin for to the man) a fallacy of logic in which a persons character or motive is attacked instead of that persons argument.

Quote:
Then, the various main authors, mostly are not (competent) scientists, are to write the complete report that is going to support the condensed issue. In this process scientists are asked to comment on the report. No matter what their comments are they are taken as in support of the report. This has nothing to do with science.

Your comments are all certainly Ad hominens - you insinuate that the authors of the IPCC report are 'mostly not competent' and that the comments taken by the authorship group are 'always taken in support of the report' i.e. deliberately falsified. You do not discuss the report at all, any of its findings or methodology. You attack the person, not the data or conclusions.

If you have any evidence to support the claims of either incompetance or deliberate malfescance above, I'd like to see it. You utterance of them is not sufficient evidence to convince me.

What about Dr. Paul Reiter, a leading entomologist?...

The House of Lords issed a response to Dr. Reiter's statements, stating that his 'support' for his own statements were:

"...quite selective in the references and reports that he criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published..."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /71/71.pdf

There was also extensive replies to Dr Reiter in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, by Drs. Paul Epstein and Andy Haines - both of which are well published experts in the same field.

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/about/faculty/epstein.html
[/url]
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/315/7111/805

Directly contrary to Paul Reiter's statements, the IPCC is, in fact, staffed by a variety of researchs that include entomologists who have, in fact, published and are considered experts in their fields, outside of Reiter's personal opinion. If you wanted to argue Reiter's conclusions versus that of the IPCC scientists, that's fine...let the data prove whose conclusions more accurately affect reality over time. That is how science works. But the attacks on fellow researchers you have quoted from Reiter are demonstratably false, and easily verified as such.

Or what about Dr. Christopher Landsea...

Again, if you want to argue Landsea's scientific conclusions, that's one thing...simply putting forward his name as some kind of 'proof' that there is something wrong with IPCC misses the point.

Landsea doesn't even doubt that human activity may be contributing to global warming. He simply disagrees with the level of impact, and the particular climate model's used by IPCC. He represents a minority view which, at least, is presenting alternate hypothesis which will ultimately be testable against the facts.

Landsea's original letter was relayed by Roger Piekle Jr, another atmospheric scientist, who has been invited by the Cato Institute to draft articles related to Global Warming for Regulation, one of Cato's publications. Despite his libertarian background, Dr. Piekle Jr. does not share Landsea's conclusions - further proof that facts, not politics, are the ultimate measure of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_%28Jr%29

Or take Dr. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. In their report on IPCC they found that it broke 72 out of 89 principles for scientific forecasting, a field that they are experts on. "The climate modellers have no concept of what it means to forecast".

Speaking of taking comments from people who aren't experts in the field - These two aren't even climate scientists. Dr. Scott Armstong is a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School at the Univ. of Penn. Dr. Kesten Green is Senior Research Fellow at the Business and Economics Forecasting Unit in Monash, Australia

http://www.nbesonline.com/armstrong.pdf
[/url]http://www.kestencgreen.com/kgcv.pdf[/url]

Now, I am not ready to totally dismiss their findings, because they are discussing forecasting models. But if I were to use the same logic you used in quoting Paul Reiter, I could simply ignore these individuals because they weren't 'experts' in the field of Climate Science. Neither of them has the slightest expertise in the actual field they are making statements about.

Just because a person isn't an 'entomologist' doesn't mean they can't make statements about vector-borne disease (especially if, for instance, they happen to be experts in tropical diseases, and, thus, might have some connected knowledge about their transmissions, if not about the specifics of the mosquitos themselves - people such as Paul Epstein).

You cannot argue one way with one example, and then its opposite later on. If you want to present these as logical statements, then you must at least be consistent.

Ultimately, the truth of whether Armstrong and Green are correct in their assertions will, again, be decided by a direct comparison of the various climate models and the actual future collected data. If the IPCC climate models bear out, then Armstrong and Green are wrong. If the models fail, then they are right. Simply uttering their name is not proof - you will need to argue from their data and conclusions.

Or what about the Wegman-report...

Or check out climateaudit.org, written by Dr. McIntyre

These are both the discussion of the 'Hockey-Stick' controversy, which was touched upon earlier. The problem you face here is that the McIntyre report has been discredited by subsequent reports. It's a dead issue. Trying to resurrect it from the grave is not evidence in your favor. I suggest you look at more recent analysis of the problems with McIntyre's discussions.

Here's a website, as balance to 'Climate Audit', which directly addresses the myths perpetrated by McIntyre. It provides links to subsequent publications demonstrating both the political bias and faulty analysis of McIntyre.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

The fact is, the 'Hockey Stick' has been independently confirmed by multiple analysis, not just Mann. The American Meteorological Society published an analysis of Mann in "Journal of Climate" that addresses Mann's data and conclusions in light of McIntyre objections, using both Mann's analysis and a separate, different methodology, and still arriving at the same results. A link to that paper is available at the site above.

Mann's hockey stick is 'not trash'; it has been independently confirmed by peers, using multiple different methods, including those directly addressing McIntyre's issues. Meanwhile, McIntyre himself has been discredited as a political hack whose analysis was itself deeply flawed. If you had broadened your research horizons, you would be aware of that before pulling up this old canard.

For books, Claude Allegre _a Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet'')_, Jean de Kervasdoue _Les Precheurs de l'Apocalypse'' (``The Doomsday Preachers'')_, or Onar Åm _Kampen om Klimaet_, are all very recently published books from scepticists...

I'm not qualified to make statements on the above - I haven't read any of them. I'll have to research to see if there are english versions available. Same to the other sources you mentioned.

I will say, however, that volume of publication is not an accurate measure of support for a topic, nor for it's accuracy. There's plenty of tripe printed in huge quanities by a variety of publishing houses, on both the 'liberal' and 'conservative', 'pro-' and 'against-' side. Measuring support is a matter of polling experts in a field, not checking the 'New York Bestsellers List'. So far, that polling is presented as growing in most journalistic reports. You may be correct - skeptics might be increasing in their visibility, or maybe the journalists are wrong in their polling - either way, the number of publications just isn't the way to try to gauge it.

And, of course, ultimately reality will be the final measure. Both sides have their models and their predictions. Since just about every government in the world has decided that 'do nothing' is the best way to go forward, at least for a few years, we will have a chance to directly verify predictions of those models to determine their accuracy. The model with the correct predictions will be the closest measure of truth on the subject we can generate with current knowledge.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... n&ct=title

Ad Homenin -
fallacy--(Latin for to the man) a fallacy of logic in which a persons character or motive is attacked instead of that persons argument.

Your comments are all certainly Ad hominens - you insinuate that the authors of the IPCC report are 'mostly not competent' and that the comments taken by the authorship group are 'always taken in support of the report' i.e. deliberately falsified. You do not discuss the report at all, any of its findings or methodology. You attack the person, not the data or conclusions.

That is not what an ad hominem is. It is an argumentum ad hominem. I did not make an argument out of it -- I stated that the IPCC was a political organization, not a scientific one. For it to have been an ad hominem, I must have said something like "IPCC are incompetent, and therefore man-made CO2 emissions are not causing global warming".

Further more, it is relevant to the question whether IPCC has proved their theses, on how their research has been conducted. And that might lead to one dismissing their research, though not dismissing their thesis.

For the remainder of your post I will have to look more into it, something that I don't have time to do right now.

That is not what an ad hominem is. It is an argumentum ad hominem. I did not make an argument out of it -- I stated that the IPCC was a political organization, not a scientific one. For it to have been an ad hominem, I must have said something like "IPCC are incompetent, and therefore man-made CO2 emissions are not causing global warming".

Further more, it is relevant to the question whether IPCC has proved their theses, on how their research has been conducted. And that might lead to one dismissing their research, though not dismissing their thesis.

For the remainder of your post I will have to look more into it, something that I don't have time to do right now.

Then, for the record of those reading this thread, are you stating that it was not your intention to cast dispersions on the scientific credibility of the IPCC report with your statements about the make-up of the IPCC panel? That it is not your argument that the report is 'suspect' because the IPCC panel is 'political'. That you are not arguing that 'the IPCC is incompetent' when you state that the 'scientists are incompetent'?

The entire implication of your statements is exactly counter to your claim above. It appears quite obvious to me that you are trying to make the argument that the 'IPCC is incompetent' and that its report should be discounted, purely on the basis of its status as a political unit. To further your point, you directly challenge the scientific competancy of the people making up that same panel, rather than any perceived political bias. If you had stuck entirely with the political angle, you might be able to steer your comment through a very fine needle-hole, but it casting your statements over the scientists, you make your intentions quite clear.

AT

Yes, the IPCC and its reports are acts of incompetence and should be discounted. They do not prove what they are trying to prove. No, this is not done purely because it is a political unit, but also due to how its research is done, and the persons doing the research (as you yourself say). No, this is not an ad hominem. No, I will not feed this to you with a smaller spoon.

Yes, the IPCC and its reports are acts of incompetence and should be discounted. They do not prove what they are trying to prove. No, this is not done purely because it is a political unit, but also due to how its research is done, and the persons doing the research (as you yourself say). No, this is not an ad hominem. No, I will not feed this to you with a smaller spoon.

Well then - since you have failed to give convincing support for the statements used in your reasoning, you argument has no strength and can be rejected out of hand.


AT