Why I am Skeptical of Environmental Hysteria

[Hoi Polloi]

Little discussed is the coming refugee crisis:

[ QUOTE ]
A group of nine islands, home to 11,000 people, is the first nation to pay the ultimate price for global warming...The authorities in Tuvalu have publicly conceded defeat to the sea rising around them. Appeals have gone out to the governments of New Zealand and Australia to help in the full-scale evacuation of Tuvalu's population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lot's of people live on land that may be inundated in our lifetimes. These realities, whether you think the sea is rising due to human-caused warming or not, will be extremely challenging to say the least.

[Hoi Polloi]

It's like all of sudden they're so hysterical these climate crisis types. I mean, 30 years ago they were telling us we might be facing a crisis in 30 years. They were measured and responsible. Now, all of a sudden, they're saying we are in the midst of a crisis. Why the sudden change of tone? I, for one, would be more sympathetic to their message if they weren't so hysterical about it. They should go back to mild warnings about 30-year-away crises. That was a much better approach.

After 30 years of essentially ignoring the problem coupled with the growing body of evidence both theoretical and increasingly physical, those advocating the problem be recognized and addressed become increasingly "hysterical". But the level of hysteria is really only an artefact of 30 years of neglect.

The crisis is 30 years away, 20 years away, 10 years away, 5 years away. We're in a crisis. Note the increasing hysteria.

[Hoi Polloi]

This post is clearly the definitive study we've all been waiting for. Case closed.

[NajdorfDefense]

You don't seem to understand, nor care, what 'heat islands' [which may or may not be located in urban areas] actually are.

There are easily demonstrable problems with the change in the immediate local environment of the temperature sensors due to tree growth, new windbreaks, traffic patterns, population shifts, locating them in a parking lot, on asphalt, surrounded by vehicles emitting exhaust, etc, over the past decades and centuries.

Not to mention the incomplete or virtually blank records given for months and years at a time by some data stations.
Of course, this is a measurement/data problem, it doesn't change the fact that the globe has been warming, but we all agree we should have clean, consistent data, don't we? The effect could be minor, major, or negligable.

[CharlieDontSurf]

my laymans view of global warming

Yes it is happening..but no one really knows one is that absolute cause.

Polution is bad for humans and the earth.

Getting people/the world to be more green and move away from oil,coal,etc is better than continueing on the same path of not doing anything and acting like GW is a myth.

A world and a USA without cars/buses/ power plants/etc that run on gas/coal/etc will be better than one that does. If we have to offer huge tax breaks etc to companies(opposed due to cost etc) to get us there I'm all for it.

James Inofoff is a senile old man who should be removed from Congress due to stupidity.

Al Gore is a fat blowhard who loves the spotlight more than he does helping things. Personally if I had a celebrity manning the GW cause...I'd prefer Bono.

[KLLions]

It's 2007. We have a Democratic Congress and, given the public's disdain for our current President, I would expect to see a Democrat take the office in 2008. Regardless of which Democrat wins, I'd expect "global warming" to play a significant role in this cycle's campaign propaganda. And, for the record, it's my position that man-made carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming.

Back in the spring of 2006, I had no opinion on the issue. A friend of mine told me that it was irresponsible for me to bring children into the world without considering the environmental legacy I was leaving for them, and she was right. So I looked into the issue, reviewed the science, and saw An Inconvenient Truth.

And I concluded that there's very little evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming of the planet. In particular, virtually none of Gore's "evidence" supports his arguments.

I'd launch a long scientific discussion at this point, but past conversations have demonstrated to me that it would be futile. You can't argue religion or politics with people more than twenty years old. And "global warming from man-made carbon dioxide" is very much a religion for some people. If you think I'm wrong about "global warming," then please answer two simple questions for me.

Much like Earth, Mars has ice caps. Unlike Earth, Mars is geologically dead. The ice caps on Mars are melting too. I suspect it's because the sun is responsible for warming on both Earth and Mars. Instead of a one liner about how "the scientists have explained that the sun isn't responsible for warming," please give me a cogent scientific explanation that attempts to explain this phenomenon. Here's a hint: you can't just pick an arbitrary value for the Stefan-Boltzman constant in your weather simulations to make the sun insignificant.

Second question. It's an easy one. What gas contributes the most to Earth's greenhouse effect? I find it fascinating that everyone that believes in man-made global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide answers "carbon dioxide." Even the MIT Technology Review, which I would expect to know better, published an article in its global warming issue that says that "carbon dioxide" is "the chief greenhouse gas." See for yourself.

Carbon dioxide is not the chief greenhouse gas. Finding the right answer to this second question is the first step you would need to take if you care enough about the issue to do your own independent analysis.

Having done my analysis, I believe that global warming and cooling is a solar phenomenon which isn't fully understood at this time. If I had to guess, I think it has to do with changes in cosmic ray-generated cloud coverage. If that's the case, I would expect the planet to start cooling around 2015 [although global temp peaked in the El Nino of 1998].

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't seem to understand, nor care, what 'heat islands' [which may or may not be located in urban areas] actually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't seem to understand, nor care, about the fact that your responses here are so blatantly selective.

wacki asked some questions in an apparent attempt to narrow your focus. you pretended he didn't, and then announced that you were done with the thread. you quickly returned, but kept ignoring his posts. now you're directly responding to him but still won't answer? i'm sure he would address every point that you make, but i hope he doesn't spend time responding to you until you're fully willing to do the same.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 2007. We have a Democratic Congress and, given the public's disdain for our current President, I would expect to see a Democrat take the office in 2008. Regardless of which Democrat wins, I'd expect "global warming" to play a significant role in this cycle's campaign propaganda. And, for the record, it's my position that man-made carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming.

Back in the spring of 2006, I had no opinion on the issue. A friend of mine told me that it was irresponsible for me to bring children into the world without considering the environmental legacy I was leaving for them, and she was right. So I looked into the issue, reviewed the science, and saw An Inconvenient Truth.

And I concluded that there's very little evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming of the planet. In particular, virtually none of Gore's "evidence" supports his arguments.

I'd launch a long scientific discussion at this point, but past conversations have demonstrated to me that it would be futile. You can't argue religion or politics with people more than twenty years old. And "global warming from man-made carbon dioxide" is very much a religion for some people. If you think I'm wrong about "global warming," then please answer two simple questions for me.

Much like Earth, Mars has ice caps. Unlike Earth, Mars is geologically dead. The ice caps on Mars are melting too. I suspect it's because the sun is responsible for warming on both Earth and Mars. Instead of a one liner about how "the scientists have explained that the sun isn't responsible for warming," please give me a cogent scientific explanation that attempts to explain this phenomenon. Here's a hint: you can't just pick an arbitrary value for the Stefan-Boltzman constant in your weather simulations to make the sun insignificant.

Second question. It's an easy one. What gas contributes the most to Earth's greenhouse effect? I find it fascinating that everyone that believes in man-made global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide answers "carbon dioxide." Even the MIT Technology Review, which I would expect to know better, published an article in its global warming issue that says that "carbon dioxide" is "the chief greenhouse gas." See for yourself.

Carbon dioxide is not the chief greenhouse gas. Finding the right answer to this second question is the first step you would need to take if you care enough about the issue to do your own independent analysis.

Having done my analysis, I believe that global warming and cooling is a solar phenomenon which isn't fully understood at this time. If I had to guess, I think it has to do with changes in cosmic ray-generated cloud coverage. If that's the case, I would expect the planet to start cooling around 2015 [although global temp peaked in the El Nino of 1998].

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't seem to understand, nor care, what 'heat islands' [which may or may not be located in urban areas] actually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

wacki asked some questions in an apparent attempt to narrow your focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, attacking the messenger, always a good tactic! If I don't have 100% of the answers then anything I say must be wrong!

I certainly don't need to write a reply to every post on this thread, nor am I going to, in fact it is patently absurd of you to think so. Obviously, one needs to spend time reading and thinking about these issues others have raised [which takes away from free time, sleep, work, etc]. I only came back to reply to some of the laughably wrong posts about costs of various energy sources. Nobody has all the answers and I don't pretend to, unlike a few posters here.

But, if I'm so clearly in the wrong on one particular issue, why keep replying? You seem to have a real hang-up there.

90% of the peer-reviewed, scientific data I provided remains valid and unrefuted. A few instances, someone [perhaps you or others] provided newer data that showed a different/contrasting fact set or conclusion. Most retorts here were illogical, non-sequiturs, or not scientifically based - in some cases relying on *future projections and models* to foolishly expose their ignorance of actual data.

The data and research I linked to on, say, the growth of the ice caps and glaciers in Antarctica, going on for 30+ years, is consistently ignored and unreported by the mainstream press. Just one of dozens of examples. Two research teams from N.Europe recently said that Greenland, rather than melting, could be growing ice due to measurement problems with the growth in the center v the melting at the edges.

Again, this goes unreported. 23-yr old cub reporters would rather watch a movie than read peer-reviewed scientific journals like the Journal of Glaciology. So be it.

Man-made CO2 comprises only 7% of the entire 0.035% of CO2 which is in our atmosphere. You keep your laser-like focus and closed-minded intensity on that one factor, while I consider things like solar forcing, cloud formation, and other, much more likely theories. You act like there's already a 'right' and 'wrong' answer to all of these questions. There sure isn't.
In every previous geologic era, from Cambrian to Cenozoic, the CO2 levels ranged from 1000ppm to as high as 4000ppm in the Devonian Era. But a 50ppm rise in recent decades is cause for hysteria today. Hmmmm.

According to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 'Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.' And Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. And yet no one talks about it...how very, very strange, given all the hysteria about greenhouse warming. C'est la vie.

[astroglide]

<font color="blue">If I don't have 100% of the answers then anything I say must be wrong!</font>

i don't think anyone is saying that. each point has individual value. if you want to show up and play selective softball, that's your right. but doing so with such a condescensive air of superiority is unjustified given that you ignore apparently worthy responses and/or adversaries wholesale. if you want to square up, you don't have to complete your debates. just drop the attitude.

<font color="blue">You act like there's already a 'right' and 'wrong' answer to all of these questions.</font>

i'm sure that there isn't. i've said this all before: i'm not an expert, but the apparent majority believes that man is having a negative impact. that's already a fair starting point. but reducing my consumption, thinking about the bigger picture, and saving some money are all good things whether we're headed south or not. so yes, they might be wrong. but if so, oh well.