What if global-warming fears are overblown?

[Avernus]

How about shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars in what is (or rather should be) a thinly veiled con game?

 

oh, then they better get in line....I'm pretty sure we have a few of those going on...

 

have you looked into the Pharmaceutical Industry lately?

[Bronco Billy]

oh, then they better get in line....I'm pretty sure we have a few of those going on...

 

have you looked into the Pharmaceutical Industry lately?

 

That's your rebuttal? Complete deflection of the subject?

 

At least the pharmaceutical industry produces something. What is $$$Hundreds of billions/zero?

[Avernus]

That's your rebuttal? Complete deflection of the subject?

 

At least the pharmaceutical industry produces something. What is $$$Hundreds of billions/zero?

 

oh....that was a deflection?....I thought it was a great analogy ....and I'm not even going to go there because your comment is almost begging me to derail this topic completely if you truly think that...

 

and yeah...that's all I've got because I said what I said....you can quote another little snip of what I said 2 posts ago and try to pick that apart too.....and then another small quote when I'm done re-explaining that as well...

[billay]

That's your rebuttal? Complete deflection of the subject?

Speaking of changing the subject, I'm still waiting on your response to bushwacked's post.

[H8tank]

what are the risks of ignoring "Global Warming" and finding out we should have done something? - devastation of mankind...

 

Whoa dude, you like blew my mind. totally dude.

[Bronco Billy]

Speaking of changing the subject, I'm still waiting on your response to bushwacked's post.

 

Response to what?

[billay]

Response to what?

Response to this.

[bpwallace49]

 

Response to this.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Response to this.

 

You mean this:

 

 

Sure it is...

 

 

ETA: After doing a web search, I can't find one link that shows the survey in its entirety, what individuals took the survey, and what the results for each question were. Furthermore, every link associated with the aforementioned survey is an article verbatim identical to the CNN story (who happened to steal it verbatim from the professor who ran the survey but failed to publish the survey, the names of the participants, and its results).

 

Now THAT'S unimpreachable credibility...

[billay]

You mean this:

No, I mean this.

the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

 

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.

”

 

Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

 

In a op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

[Bronco Billy]

No, I mean this.

 

I think debunking the work using a sampling of 30 of the 31000 signatures - again, cherry picked, I'm sure, since that's seems to be the style of the pro-AGW supporters - means very little to me. You'll notice how the "consensus" was picked apart in greater depth and detail and was shown to be a very poor representation of the claims that were made of the makeup of the "consensus".

[billay]

I think debunking the work using a sampling of 30 of the 31000 signatures - again, cherry picked, I'm sure, since that's seems to be the style of the pro-AGW supporters - means very little to me. You'll notice how the "consensus" was picked apart in greater depth and detail and was shown to be a very poor representation of the claims that were made of the makeup of the "consensus".

I am not familiar with the acronym AGW. Accelerated Global Warming?

[Bronco Billy]

I am not familiar with the acronym AGW. Accelerated Global Warming?

 

AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming

 

YW

[billay]

YW

You really are an El Guapo.

[Azazello1313]

and I'll even do a little risk management here:

 

what are the risks of being right about "Global Warming" and finding out we over-reacted? - more recession?...more wasted money and effort?

 

what are the risks of ignoring "Global Warming" and finding out we should have done something? - devastation of mankind...

 

see, and this is primarily what I would dispute. as addressed by one of the leading climate scientists in the world in the first post in this thread:

Q: What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right?

 

A: The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.

 

and one more thought from him: "Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely."

 

and that's what it comes down to for me. I've heard lots of dire claims -- like your "devastation of mankind" statement -- but I've never seen anything that supports that. the scariest thing I've heard is that the oceans might rise a few inches over a number of decades/centuries. this would obviously be a very gradual change. now it's easy to see how even a few inches would present serious challenges for some cities and parts of the world, and changing weather patterns and the like would really hurt some agricultural regions (while really helping others). but might we not be better off taking concrete steps to confront ACTUAL events as they start to happen than we would be throwing spending trillions while a wet blanket over the entire world economy based on dubious speculation about what might happen? I mean, shouldn't we at least try and approach this whole situation from a rational cost-benefit perspective? but we never really hear that, we only hear apocalyptic hyperbole trying to scare the world into a the policy prescriptions of a particular political agenda. usually, a reliance on that sort of argument reflects an underlying logical weakness.

[Avernus]

Whoa dude, you like blew my mind. totally dude.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's that bottle you opened up at 8am this morning....

 

we went over this the other day with your problem with alcohol....

 

I'd suggest 12 steps, but you'd probably pass out on your face after 2...

[Avernus]

see, and this is primarily what I would dispute. as addressed by one of the leading climate scientists in the world in the first post in this thread:

 

 

and one more thought from him: "Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely."

 

and that's what it comes down to for me. I've heard lots of dire claims -- like your "devastation of mankind" statement -- but I've never seen anything that supports that. the scariest thing I've heard is that the oceans might rise a few inches over a number of decades/centuries. this would obviously be a very gradual change. now it's easy to see how even a few inches would present serious challenges for some cities and parts of the world, and changing weather patterns and the like would really hurt some agricultural regions (while really helping others). but might we not be better off taking concrete steps to confront ACTUAL events as they start to happen than we would be throwing spending trillions while a wet blanket over the entire world economy based on dubious speculation about what might happen? I mean, shouldn't we at least try and approach this whole situation from a rational cost-benefit perspective? but we never really hear that, we only hear apocalyptic hyperbole trying to scare the world into a the policy prescriptions of a particular political agenda. usually, a reliance on that sort of argument reflects an underlying logical weakness.

 

I was merely stating what the fears of both arguments are....

 

my opinion is that we should clean up our lifestyle on this planet as not to be as filthy as we are....not because we'll all die, but because it's not healthy for us

[Retrograde assault]

Look at the bright side, we all gonna be fertilizer one day or another,that should help mother earth. George Carlin had it right, man is too self-important.

[bushwacked]

it's like if I charted the relationship between the amount of dog schit in my backyard and the number of flies, and then I said, "we see a strong correlation between the amount of schit and the number of flies....therefore, if we release more flies, we will also end up with more dog schit."

 

In quoting your link it says this in the first few paragraphs:

 

There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice

 

And then this:

 

it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming

[bushwacked]

I think debunking the work using a sampling of 30 of the 31000 signatures - again, cherry picked, I'm sure,

 

Assuming your proud 31,000 signatures are valid, which they obviously aren't , less than 1% of them were climatologists.

 

Why do you put so much weight on what the Spice Girls think , while I put weight on the overwhelming scientific consensus?

 

This isn't a trick question.

[WaterMan]

Put in the name Art Robinson, the guy who made the petition, into google and it's a fun read.

 

Art Robinson

 

Brief backgrounder

Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming."

 

Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.

 

In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”

 

Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." (source). Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.

 

 

 

The infamous "Oregon Petition"

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

 

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

 

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

 

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

 

Oregon petition and big tobacco

It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

 

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls

According to the May 1998 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

 

Robinson admits he is not a climate scientist

Of his own admission Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming," and an ISI database search of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any research in the area of human-induced climate change.

Edited June 25, 2009 by WaterMan

[bushwacked]

Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.

In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, released a petition on global warming and on the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists....Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming."...l.”

 

It would be really sad if Robinson actually duped people into believing his desperately stupid drivel.

[Bronco Billy]

You really are an El Guapo.

 

Ow. You hurt my feelings.

[Bronco Billy]

it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists

 

About the National Academy of Science:

 

The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate"

 

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

 

link

 

 

From the NAS Koshland Museum website:

 

The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is likely the most significant cause of the current warming. Other greenhouse gases along with other factors discussed in the following sections also contribute.

 

How is it that such an esteemed group of superior thinkers do not understand the relationship between warming and CO2 levels, with warming being the causal element and CO2 being the lagging indicator?

 

Wait, there's more:

 

The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth's climate system. Although the Sun's energy output appears constant from an everyday point of view, small changes over an extended period of time can lead to climate changes. Some scientists suspect that a portion of the warming in the first half of the 20th century was due to an increase in the output of solar energy.

 

Some scientists suspect a portion in the first half of the century?

 

Note the chart link showing CO2 levels and temperatures levels as high as they are right now approximately 125,000 years ago and both being higher about 325,000 years ago. It also clearly explains ice ages and interglacials that are corroborated by the chart, yet apparently dismisses this patently obvoius cycle (which is completely consistent with solar cycle, by the way) in favor of man being the cause of the predominance of global warming.

 

 

That's a great source you've got there to enhance the credibility of your argument!

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Here's a nice critique on exactly how disingenuous the NAS is in it's report about global warming:

 

link

 

Climate Change Science? National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report Fails to Live Up to Its Billing

 

by Gerald Marsh

 

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

 

Thus begins the summary of the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report "Climate Change Science," which made headlines across the world for (supposedly) providing additional "proof" that mankind is causing global warming.

 

But the headline writers didn't read the fine print.

 

This often quoted, categorical statement is not supported by the rest of the NAS report - or the scientific report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body frequently cited as a key authority on global warming.

 

Two sentences later in the NAS summary, readers are told that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability." "Likely mostly due to human activities"? "Some significant part"? Given these qualifications, and the very large uncertainties in the science, how could the National Research Council (NRC) - the research arm of the NAS - approve such a categorical opening sentence?

 

The NAS report is a summary rather than a critical review of the IPCC reports. It was prepared and approved in less than a month after the White House submitted its formal request. NRC reports, to quote Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, "always speak with one voice. Such reports... can produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who mutinies is put off at the first port of call." In other words, there is a forced consensus, one that tends to provide an oversimplified picture of the state of scientific research and of the uncertainties.

 

One must dig carefully through the report to discover that water vapor and cloud droplets are in fact the dominant cause of greenhouse warming. We are not told, however, what fraction of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds. Nor are we told that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas - one that accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect - whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere only increases greenhouse warming very slowly. Similarly, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreases greenhouse warming very slowly.

 

Thus, the relatively small changes in the emission of carbon dioxide agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol would have an insignificant impact on global warming. The provisions of the Protocol seem singularly innocent of this fact.

 

The NAS study also notes that increased radiation from the sun could be responsible for a significant part of climate change during part of the industrial era. But the study does not tell us that the warming due to the increase in solar output is comparable to that alleged to be a consequence of the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the end of the 18th century. Because carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, and increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not proportionately increase its greenhouse effect, this rise has had only a minimal impact on the earth's temperature.

 

Most people assume that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to human activity. However, our understanding of the carbon cycle is so poor that we cannot be certain this is the case. Nonetheless, deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (which, on a yearly basis, comprises only some three-and-a-half percent of the two-way exchange of carbon between the earth and its atmosphere), most likely does contribute to the increased concentration of this gas.

 

In 1976, when the earth had been cooling for some three decades, "mainstream scientists" believed that we were sliding into a new ice age. There has been significant improvement in modeling the ocean and atmosphere since then, but the predictions of these models still do not form a sound basis for public policy decisions. As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the Space Research Organization Netherlands, "Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the best reaction to global warming is for everybody to just keep their cool."

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bronco Billy