Bad Science

[Labarum]

More on the spin applied to global warming data:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

I remain sceptical. There is so much cash riding on this
bandwagon that the temptation of research departments to produce "the
right figures" must be great.

I do believe the earth is getting hotter, but not by as much as claimed
and not only or principally for the reasons claimed.

The sun is running hotter. From time to time it does that.

Nevertheless I do think we should use less energy and use it more
efficiently so it will last longer; and I do believe we should run a
cleaner show, reducing pollution as much as we can.

 

[mr_economy]

Honestly I think the climate debate has focused on the wrong aspect of emissions. While I think the science is pretty clear that humans are negatively contributing to global warming, there is absolutely no doubt that pollution and many other human-caused emissions are terrible for human health and safety.

People who live in smog-heavy cities have higher rates of many diseases, including asthma and various cancers. Their children have higher incidences of birth defects. Their reproductive abilities are decreasing over time. It's bad news. If you have children, the reason to "reduce your carbon footprint" is staring you in the face every day. It's not because of global warming, it's because of the direct impacts pollution will have on their health.

As far as funding of global warming research is concerned, keep in mind there are vested interests on both sides. Oil companies are the primary funding source behind research attacking the concept of warming, while many "green" organizations stand to benefit from increased funding for global warming issues.

I will say this - to those who don't believe humans are capable of so massively affecting the planet, clearly they have forgotten that the nuclear arsenal of the United States alone is enough to destroy nearly every living thing on this planet several times over - and that's a many-times reduced number from where it stood during the cold war. That's not to say it's impossible that global warming isn't happening, rather to say it's very possible that we're to blame if it is.

 

[toucanlamp]

I think that technology is advancing all the time and that will eventually solve the problem. I don't doubt that global warming is real, but I do really doubt this endless alarmist thinking that we are somehow suddenly maybe three or four years away from the tipping point and if we don't all shut down our economies today, the world will end within the decade.

The reality is that China and India couldn't care less about climate change, nothing we do will make them, and so all thes silly conferences are a waste.

And even worse is these new plans, giving billions and billions to poor countries to spend on reducing emissions, lol give me a break, how much carbon do nice brand new tanks and fighter jets produce?

 

[Miles]

Science Good! Politics Bad.

 

[SiBurning]

The reality is that China and India couldn't care less about climate change, nothing we do will make them, and so all thes silly conferences are a waste.

And even worse is these new plans, giving billions and billions to poor countries to spend on reducing emissions, lol give me a break, how much carbon do nice brand new tanks and fighter jets produce?

It probably makes more sense to put any effort and money into smaller countries that don't have better controls. Larger economies like India, China, Russia, etc. can be coddled and beat with trade carrots and sticks. The only practical way to lessen pollution is for those who care to pay for it, and I'm thinking here in terms of the hierarchy of needs, where the poorer countries are more concerned with getting more basic needs. Sulfur, carbon, and lead in air pollution aren't cheap to clean. In the US, we have plenty of coal but the scrubbers are so expensive we import natural gas instead. Other countries would just burn the coal.

It's impossible to use energy without generating heat. It's one of the basic laws of thermodynamics. The combustion engine is one of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency, and it's also a problem because we have so many cars. The only way to deal with the heat is to use less energy. Cars aside, this is something I'm not opposed to for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with global warning.

Given the efforts made in the developed world, I'm actually more concerned with heavy metals we dispose of in garbage, particularly when we dump them in countries that accept such garbage and just dump it somewhere. Just to add to the complexity, I'd toss in genetic modification of crops as a related issue that could affect biodiversity.

To me, the biggest problem with the whole global warming scare--or other similar scares--is how it diverts attention from intelligent discussion and practical, balanced solutions for environmental preservation in general. Here, I'm thinking mostly of peak oil (a reality, but not the end of civilization) and the recent rise and fall in oil prices. The main takeaway for me is how we're way too dependent on oil. In some places, more energy is used to extract and deliver oil than is had from using the oil because oil is an expensive source of energy. (And that was true 10 years ago when oil was still under $20 a barrel.)

I've never believe the global warming thing, maybe because I remember the scare from the 1970s of the coming ice age. I think it's constructive to look for improvements we've already made as a guide to the future. I'll just point to the catalytic converter, coal scrubbers, fluorescent lights, the elimination of leaded gasoline, and The Hudson River. The environment is a complex topic that deserves to be handled with a balanced, thoughtful, approach and a variety of means.

Disasters aside, I'm sure we'll screw up a few things a lot worse before we get a handle on things. And we'll invent new problems in the future. But there are solutions. None are cheap, some are drastic. But we're not all in the same place. If some solutions require the leaders to pay a small price that would be drastic for those further behind, then it makes sense to pay the small price.

Maybe some day we'll even have emissions standards for tanks, cruisers, and fighter jets.

 

[Labarum]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

 

[raisindot]

I
The reality is that China and India couldn't care less about climate change, nothing we do will make them, and so all thes silly conferences are a waste.

I'm not a China apologist, but China is becoming one of the world's largest proponents of alternative energy, probably mainly out of economic need (to reduce their reliance on imported oil and gas) than anything else. They are spending billions to build solar and wind manufacturing plants, and will ultimately become the world supplier of these components. The U.S. will miss out on this opportunity to become an alternative energy manufacturing leader and instead will become a consumer, rather than a producer, of this technology. Which is really a shame, considering that there are so many mothballed factories that could conceivably be converted from auto manufacturing to wind-tower manufacturing, with enough private and government funding behind it.

Jeff in Boston

 

[raisindot]

More on the spin applied to global warming data:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html


The sun is running hotter. From time to time it does that.

The sun is not "running hotter," at least not now. It's at the lowest level of sunspot activity in more than 100 years. Some scientists claim that this may be helping to "slow down" global warming. Whether that's true or not is anyone's guess.

Jeff in Boston

 

[tsmba]

I've never bought into the whole global warming scam. While I don't think anyone can argue that we humans are polluting our environment, using pseudo-science to promote a political agenda has become a huge problem. Like so many issues, something that was initially well-intentioned has been blown far out of proportion.

 

[Jasonian]

I've never bought into the whole global warming scam. While I don't think anyone can argue that we humans are polluting our environment, using pseudo-science to promote a political agenda has become a huge problem. Like so many issues, something that was initially well-intentioned has been blown far out of proportion.

Well summarized, my friend. It's the political agenda aspect that has me so lit up.

 

[AndrewWiggin]

What's even better is that historically, warming periods are times of great expansion and technological advancement, so, warming good, if it's even happening. Seriously, do we even have the original data anymore? I've read that the center at the heart of those recently leaked emails had destroyed their original records...

But to say that this is unsustainable, or that population growth would kill us off, is crazy talk, in a warming period populations expand because they've found ways to manage it. Not to mention the fact that population growth in the US and Europe has fallen off steadily since around 1900.

 

[82R100]

There are indicators of the warming: for instance the melting of the North Pole ice and the glacial ice in many mountain ranges.

Obviously it's going to get you steamed if you start with the assumption that it's a scam.

- Chris

 

[Obsessed]

Obviously it's going to get you steamed if you start with the assumption that it's a scam.

- Chris

Steamed? That's a big assumption. How do you know it's not making their blood run cold?

 

[WhosYerBob]

I think we're all like the proverbial frog in the pot of hot water that's slowly getting hotter. We need to stop pointing fingers - the climate is changing, who cares by what source - and we need to start thinking of ways to survive. It may not impact the baby boomers much, but it will impact all the following generations.

 

[bigred90gt]

In the first 25 years of my life, it snowed 1 time in Baytown, TX (that I can remember)where I live. It has snowed 3 times in the last 4 years.

 

[Jasonian]

There are indicators of the warming: for instance the melting of the North Pole ice and the glacial ice in many mountain ranges.

Obviously it's going to get you steamed if you start with the assumption that it's a scam.

- Chris

That is evidence for climate change. It is now, however, evidence for the warming of all regions across the entire planet.

Change isn't bad. In fact, some would even argue that "Change is Good".

Be afraid of being controlled based on a lie.

 

[*King G*]

The sun is not "running hotter," at least not now. It's at the lowest level of sunspot activity in more than 100 years. Some scientists claim that this may be helping to "slow down" global warming. Whether that's true or not is anyone's guess.

Jeff in Boston

sun spots are areas of cooler temps on the sun. no sunspots=hot sun!

i guess our SUV's are melting ice caps on jupiter's moons too.

 

[Bertilak]

sun spots are areas of cooler temps on the sun. no sunspots=hot sun!

Apparently there is a bit of uncertainty about the science of sunspots. They are indeed cooler than the rest of the sun's surface but there are hot spots as well and they are not as visible in pictures of the sun. Apparently their number is (roughly) inversely proportional to the number of sunspots and therefore the overall temperature of the sun is higher when there are lots of sunspots. I believe this is a measured effect (i.e. real). The hot spot idea is I think a theory/conjecture to explain the measured (but non-intuitive) facts.

Sunspots also generate lots of magnetic activity that affects our earth's atmosphere, having some indirect link leading to warming -- I forget the explanation I read a while back but suspect there is a lot of conjecture involved here as well. These conjectures are being proposed to explain the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures.

i guess our SUV's are melting ice caps on jupiter's moons too.

Then there's that, too.

 

[The Nid Hog]

Steamed? That's a big assumption. How do you know it's not making their blood run cold?

You won't think it's so funny when you're up to your neck in ice. Or in boiling water. Or whatever. What are we arguing about now?

 

[toucanlamp]

I'm not a China apologist, but China is becoming one of the world's largest proponents of alternative energy, probably mainly out of economic need (to reduce their reliance on imported oil and gas) than anything else. They are spending billions to build solar and wind manufacturing plants, and will ultimately become the world supplier of these components. The U.S. will miss out on this opportunity to become an alternative energy manufacturing leader and instead will become a consumer, rather than a producer, of this technology. Which is really a shame, considering that there are so many mothballed factories that could conceivably be converted from auto manufacturing to wind-tower manufacturing, with enough private and government funding behind it.

Jeff in Boston

Well apparantly they've shown a little bit of interest in such things, but the reality is rather that they've been expanding every single year production of what is by far their most important energy source, which is the worst one of all - coal. According to stats I read, today China generates about 70% of its electricity from coal power plants, most citizens still use coal fired stoves to heat their homes.

I really, really doubt they're going to kickstart any kind of green revolution anytime soon. The cost per unit of electricity generated from wind or solar power is insanely higher than coal, and China has the second biggest coal reserves on Earth behind the USA.

The cities are thick with horrible, choking smog, three quarters of all inland water bodies are significantly polluted.

I think the technology has to be funded, but dumping money into projects today is a huge waste. Things like solar or wind power are still young technologies and their efficiency, reliability and long-term costs are still poor compared to existing forms of electricity generation.

I'd support having all the rich countries of the world spend billions on green energy research projects, but not on terrible mismanaged ideas like bio fuel or carbon capture.