Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

**highsea** · 15 Oct 10,, 18:23

Originally Posted by tantalus

you know guys, if AGW is disproved, it will damage sciences relationship with society.

I don't think the basic premise (that man's influence has some effect that is non-zero) can ever be disproved. What can be disproved is the models, and the alarmism surrounding the issue.

Certain people will be discredited, but getting to the truth will not discredit science, it will be a triumph of reason over panic.

As you note, it would allow us to focus on more pressing matters.

The sceptics aren't trying to argue that man's influence doesn't exist, just that the claims by the AGW proponents are so full of holes that they need to be examined in greater depth before we make policies that will drastically effect economies.

We need to have confidence that:

a. the problem is real, and
b. the solutions offered will be effective

**astralis** · 15 Oct 10,, 18:27

The sceptics aren't trying to argue that man's influence doesn't exist, just that the claims by the AGW proponents are so full of holes that they need to be examined in greater depth before we make policies that will drastically effect economies.

We need to have confidence that:

a. the problem is real, and
b. the solutions offered will be effective

i'm actually curious to see if there are scientists that find themselves in the middle position; ie there is some effect, but it's not going to cause the earth to melt down in 20 years, and the solutions do not involve de-industrialization.

i notice within the AGW community it's already split; ie the types whom think that being more efficient and new technologies will be enough, vs the types whom think nothing less than stripping back "consumerism" and industrialization will do (and view the first group as "lazy environmentalists").

**tantalus** · 15 Oct 10,, 18:59

For highsea
I should have been clearer, I wasnt referring to a zero non-effect either.
I still think that a perception exists in society that there is a consensus, but perhaps not so much in the US and that if AGW is brought into desrepute regarding the extent it is effecting our climate, or if it becomes apparent that we dont have solid proof, that science will suffer a setback in its reputation (however I am not saying that is the major issue in this topic).

The sceptics aren't trying to argue that man's influence doesn't exist, just that the claims by the AGW proponents are so full of holes that they need to be examined in greater depth before we make policies that will drastically effect economies.

We need to have confidence that:

a. the problem is real, and
b. the solutions offered will be effective

Agreed, although I would call them sensible sceptics

For astralis

stripping back "consumerism" and industrialization

I would support such ideas, not for climatic reasons, but for other motivations and benefits.

scientists that find themselves in the middle position; ie there is some effect, but it's not going to cause the earth to melt down in 20 years, and the solutions do not involve de-industrialization

most AGW supporting scientists fall into that category i would guess. Its not possible to know, most arent giving press conferences, the media do not represent things correctly, thats not a requirement of theirs

**highsea** · 15 Oct 10,, 20:35

There are lots of AGW sceptics who are still environmentalists. The desire to protect the environment doesn't require acceptance of AGW doomsday predictions. There's nothing wrong with conservation of resourses, no matter the reason.

The problem is when you used ginned up science to push a philosophical viewpoint.

And while there is concensus in science, it's not a requirement for good science, and there's not really any tradition of compromise in science. We don't accept a Copernican solar system for the first 4 planets and a Ptolemaic solar system from Jupiter on out. There's a lot of "all or nothing" in science.

But as I've said before, there's something in this debate that trumps the science, and that's the money. The big banks want that carbon exchange in the worst way, and governments want the carbon tax revenues. The science is just the excuse, and academia is going along because it pays the bills.

**Wooglin** · 15 Oct 10,, 22:03

Originally Posted by astralis

'm actually curious to see if there are scientists that find themselves in the middle position; ie there is some effect, but it's not going to cause the earth to melt down in 20 years, and the solutions do not involve de-industrialization.

Yes, they are called 'deniers'. To be honest, I really don't know of any skeptic scientists that argue we have no effect.

**BadKharma** · 15 Oct 10,, 23:39

I do not see any scientist in their right mind denying that carbon emmisions have absolutely no effect, the problem is attempting to answer the entire issue based upon mans influance when they still do not entirely understand the earths climate to begin with.

**Parihaka** · 15 Oct 10,, 23:58

Originally Posted by tantalus

I would support such ideas, not for climatic reasons, but for other motivations and benefits.

How many people are you prepared to kill to do so?

**gunnut** · 16 Oct 10,, 00:17

Originally Posted by Parihaka

How many people are you prepared to kill to do so?

All the non-essential ones.

I get to decide who's not essential.

**Parihaka** · 16 Oct 10,, 00:22

Originally Posted by gunnut

All the non-essential ones.

I get to decide who's not essential.

**tantalus** · 16 Oct 10,, 12:26

Parihaka

How many people are you prepared to kill to do so?

what i was stating was that it would be a good thing for our species if we reduced our need for materials goods (consumerism) and our industrialisation of the planet which is damaging our society and all life. While a proportion of humanity is doing well off this, the majority live in poverty (and it seems likely to increase), and and many other species are suffering also. I believe supporting an increase in consumerism and industrilisation, or a continuing of the current level, or a lack of action to attempt to reduce it, will result in the continued suffering of those who live in poverty now and the future and also for much of the rest of the life on the planet. A complete and rapid strip down would be counter-productive and damaging to our economies and human welfare and thus hamper any ability to achieve these goals but we need to shake or self out of our ignorance, assess our values and the actions that should go with them.
The current system has largely failed, if someone cannot see this, i believe its because they are standing in the small part that hasnt (at the expense of the rest). Considering our intelligence as a species, I truly find it deeply sad that this is the current affairs we find our self in (as it has alwalys been in our recorded history), I do believe that it is possible for it to be otherwise. Ofcourse I know this has all been said before. I would ask everyone what do they think about this, but its off point to this thread's content.

**tantalus** · 16 Oct 10,, 17:50

On another note, dangerous policy making, with the PR motives of tackling "AGW" is a worry. A good example is certain biofuel production, whereby attempts to find alternatives for fuel have been poorly thought out, resulting in the use of land that should be used to grow crops, the end result has been an increase in certain crucial food prices.

There are plenty of other good reasons to improve air quality and reduce emissions, ground ozone is a major air pollutant, especially for plants, for example

Translating these assumed yield losses into total global economic damage for the four crops considered, using world market prices for the year 2000, we estimate an economic loss in the range $14–$26 billion

- Van Dingenen et al., The global impact of ozone on agricultural crop yields under current and future air quality legislation. Atmospheric Environment, Volume 43, Issue 3, January 2009, Pages 604-618 .

On all my points, I am not saying we should severly damage or economies through drastic changes, we can move towards a better society and world based on sound economics

**gunnut** · 16 Oct 10,, 23:26

Originally Posted by tantalus

What i was stating was that it would be a good thing for our species if we reduced our need for materials goods (consumerism) and our industrialisation of the planet which is damaging our society and all life.

Speculation and opinion.

Originally Posted by tantalus

While a proportion of humanity is doing well off this, the majority live in poverty (and it seems likely to increase),

Factually incorrect. Living standards for everyone has increased since the industrial age. The only difference is the west increased at a far faster rate than other parts of the world. Therefore they "seemed" to have regressed.

Originally Posted by tantalus

and and many other species are suffering also.

Speculation.

Originally Posted by tantalus

I believe supporting an increase in consumerism and industrilisation, or a continuing of the current level, or a lack of action to attempt to reduce it, will result in the continued suffering of those who live in poverty now and the future and also for much of the rest of the life on the planet.

Opinion.

Originally Posted by tantalus

A complete and rapid strip down would be counter-productive and damaging to our economies and human welfare and thus hamper any ability to achieve these goals but we need to shake or self out of our ignorance, assess our values and the actions that should go with them.

A lot of words but no substance.

Originally Posted by tantalus

The current system has largely failed

Define failure. What is your metric? If there's a failure, there must be a success. What is your criteria on that?

Originally Posted by tantalus

if someone cannot see this, i believe its because they are standing in the small part that hasnt (at the expense of the rest).

opinion.

Originally Posted by tantalus

Considering our intelligence as a species, I truly find it deeply sad that this is the current affairs we find our self in (as it has alwalys been in our recorded history), I do believe that it is possible for it to be otherwise. Ofcourse I know this has all been said before. I would ask everyone what do they think about this, but its off point to this thread's content.

You are making a subjectiive value judgement based on your own opinions rather than facts and figures. I prefer machines over nature. Machines are predictable. More people have died from natural causes than man-made causes. Chew on that for a second.

**tantalus** · 17 Oct 10,, 03:26

chew, I must have really got to you on something, but i dont know what.

1st - For the most part, the post was opinion, I didn’t claim otherwise

Define poverty - state of being poor: the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing (from msn.com) I would consider it largely an adequate definition except it should also include something regarding the ability to afford clean water and basic healthcare. Although many studies only cover poverty in the context of monetary value.

While a proportion of humanity is doing well off this, the majority live in poverty (and it seems likely to increase),

Living standards for everyone has increased since the industrial age. The only difference is the west increased at a far faster rate than other parts of the world. Therefore they "seemed" to have regressed

Your statement is valid. It is also different to mind, you have put a different perspective on judging and comparing poverty by defining progress on poverty by comparing to pre-modern standards. Your statement treated on its own is valid, as is mine.

than facts and figures

if you are annoyed with me not giving facts why havnt you done so regarding your living standard fact, not that i disagree with it. You are as guilty as I am, although its not a necessity, but sometimes it is reasonable to just state opinion.

regarding increases in poverty. Some head way has been made in tackling poverty (this really depends on how u define it), most of which has occured in China. I am not oblivious to the catch 22 which is my reducing poverty, you will increase damage to the environment, atleast under the current way by people who are not poor live.
Thought it would be interesting to look at the USA, considering its one of the wealthy nations. In the 2009 ACS, 14.3 percent of the U.S. population had income below their respective poverty thresholds. The number of people in poverty increased to 42.9 million.
• Thirty-one states saw increases in both the number and percentage of people in poverty between the 2008 and the 2009 ACS.
• No state had a statistically signifi cant decline in either the number in poverty or the poverty rate.
• In the 2009 ACS, 18.9 percent of people in the United States had income less than 125 percent of their poverty threshold, compared to 17.6 percent in the 2008 ACS.
(from 2009 American Community Survey
(ACS) - Poverty - U.S. Census Bureau

and and many other species are suffering also. Speculation.

The IUCN report on trends in species threatened with extinction. section 4 in particular.
http://ecomuseu-azores.org/saojorge/...Assessment.pdf
Of course, species don’t have to go extinct to suffer, for example current industrialization of food production such as chicken farming could be considered suffering, not saying iam a vegetarian or anything.

I

believe supporting an increase in consumerism and industrilisation, or a continuing of the current level, or a lack of action to attempt to reduce it, will result in the continued suffering of those who live in poverty now and the future and also for much of the rest of the life on the planet.
Opinion.

Whats yours?. Considering we also face a major increase in the world human pop.

A lot of words but no substance.

I thought you would have agreed with this point. Some would say we need rapid change from our current global economic system and the lifestyles that go with the wealthy (our way of living) and that also damages the environment, this rapid change would damage our economies as our current system is dependent on current affairs. Change needs to be slowly introduced, we need money to achieve this, thus we cant cripple our economies, we need the current system to help us get out of it. (yes, it’s the same hocus-pocus as the last post)

Define failure. What is your metric? If there's a failure, there must be a success. What is your criteria on that?

To relieve people from poverty, to stop damaging the environment, depleting resources, of central importance to prevent the world pop from increasing further, as regard somehow quantifying this, very difficult, perhaps easier regarding reducing poverty, as regard other species, probably need to be quantified at some smaller spatial scale, local and national. as i said difficult but its a good point

More people have died from natural causes than man-made causes. Chew on that for a second.

You will have to help me out here, what do you mean by natural. If one person lives in a modern skyscraper, and another at the foot of this building, in a dilapidated house below standard building regulations (because there poor) and an earthquake occurs, the poor person dies, the skyscraper inhabitant survives, is there death deemed natural or due to man-made causes. and even if your are correct, I am not sure what it proves, regarding my opinion? And you havnt supplied a fact to support this statement, as i said guilty as i am. not that i see it as a matter of guilt, its reasonable to voice an opinion.

I prefer machines over nature

Nature is predictable too, when you look from the right scale with enough detail, we just cant see it all the time.

Now, I have done by best, considering the can of worms I opened. Undoubtely I have failed for the most part and left my points look like swiss cheese (awful cliche but iam at my deathbed here), but you gotta love a tryer, or something……
Finally, as you said - opinion

**ArmchairGeneral** · 17 Oct 10,, 04:26

Originally Posted by gunnut

Factually incorrect. Living standards for everyone has increased since the industrial age.

Are you sure? The astronomical increase in global wealth has been simultaneous with an astronomical increase in population, with the majority of the wealth growth and population growth occurring in mostly non-overlapping groups of countries. It is possible that the massive population growth in poor countries is due to increases in wealth/living standards, but it is also possible that it is primarily due to advances in medical knowledge- it is trivially easy to greatly reduce infant mortality from the rates typical of pre-industrial civilization, quite possibly without increasing living standards at all. When you go from 8 out of 10 people dying before they're 5 to 4 out of 10, your population growth is gonna step on the gas. This is not unprecedented in human history- the invention of farming allowed massive increases in population, but seems to have actually reduced health and life expectancy.

I expect living standards for almost everyone have increased since 1950 or so, but since 1800 or 1850, I wouldn't be surprised if they have decreased. Impossible to say without good data.

**gunnut** · 18 Oct 10,, 19:50

Originally Posted by tantalus

Define poverty - state of being poor: the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing (from msn.com) I would consider it largely an adequate definition except it should also include something regarding the ability to afford clean water and basic healthcare. Although many studies only cover poverty in the context of monetary value.

Basic health care is now a part of the poverty matrix?

Define "basic" health care.

Originally Posted by tantalus

Your statement is valid. It is also different to mind, you have put a different perspective on judging and comparing poverty by defining progress on poverty by comparing to pre-modern standards. Your statement treated on its own is valid, as is mine.

Of course we should use the absolute scale rather than a relative scale. A relative scale for poverty will always give you a certain percentage of people as being "poor." There will never be progress because it's graded on a curve.

Originally Posted by tantalus

if you are annoyed with me not giving facts why havnt you done so regarding your living standard fact, not that i disagree with it. You are as guilty as I am, although its not a necessity, but sometimes it is reasonable to just state opinion.

True, but you accuse the modern world being guilty of hurting the environment and creating a large number of "poverty." It is not my burden to disprove that but your burden to prove it.

Originally Posted by tantalus

regarding increases in poverty. Some head way has been made in tackling poverty (this really depends on how u define it), most of which has occured in China. I am not oblivious to the catch 22 which is my reducing poverty, you will increase damage to the environment, atleast under the current way by people who are not poor live.
Thought it would be interesting to look at the USA, considering its one of the wealthy nations. In the 2009 ACS, 14.3 percent of the U.S. population had income below their respective poverty thresholds. The number of people in poverty increased to 42.9 million.
• Thirty-one states saw increases in both the number and percentage of people in poverty between the 2008 and the 2009 ACS.
• No state had a statistically signifi cant decline in either the number in poverty or the poverty rate.
• In the 2009 ACS, 18.9 percent of people in the United States had income less than 125 percent of their poverty threshold, compared to 17.6 percent in the 2008 ACS.
(from 2009 American Community Survey
(ACS) - Poverty - U.S. Census Bureau

If you read the numbers and criteria for poverty using the US standards, you will find this is in direct contradiction as the definition you posted at the begining of this post:

Define poverty - state of being poor: the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing (from msn.com)

How many people in the US are really in "poverty" by this definition? I don't deny that we have some. It is inevitable in any society to have people in abject poverty. But the poor in the US is probably better than most middle class families in the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by tantalus

The IUCN report on trends in species threatened with extinction. section 4 in particular.
http://ecomuseu-azores.org/saojorge/...Assessment.pdf
Of course, species don’t have to go extinct to suffer, for example current industrialization of food production such as chicken farming could be considered suffering, not saying iam a vegetarian or anything.

If you think farming makes domesticated animals "suffer" then you are personifying animals.

Most creatures that have ever existed are extinct. We didn't cause that. They die because they can't adapt the environment. We are also part of the environment. Adapt or die. Some examples of animals that have adapted to us: cats, dogs, cockroaches, mice, rats...etc. Their numbers seem to have exploded with our presence. They aren't farm animals either. We directly or indirectly facilitate their existance. Some better than others.

Originally Posted by tantalus

Whats yours?. Considering we also face a major increase in the world human pop.

So? We can easily feed those extra people. I for one think we need more people, especially in the west. If you tell me we have too many people in this world then I will ask you to give me an example of overpopulation.

Originally Posted by tantalus

I thought you would have agreed with this point. Some would say we need rapid change from our current global economic system and the lifestyles that go with the wealthy (our way of living) and that also damages the environment, this rapid change would damage our economies as our current system is dependent on current affairs. Change needs to be slowly introduced, we need money to achieve this, thus we cant cripple our economies, we need the current system to help us get out of it. (yes, it’s the same hocus-pocus as the last post)

Code word for socialism, wealth transfer by the power of the gun. Funny how all those people who claim to care about the earth end up with the same solution.

Originally Posted by tantalus

To relieve people from poverty, to stop damaging the environment, depleting resources, of central importance to prevent the world pop from increasing further, as regard somehow quantifying this, very difficult, perhaps easier regarding reducing poverty, as regard other species, probably need to be quantified at some smaller spatial scale, local and national. as i said difficult but its a good point

We can relieve people from poverty, but it requires damaging the environment and depleting resources. Which do you want?

Here's that word again, stop population increase. Now I have to ask you where would you like to stop this population increase and how. Where in the world do most people live? Do you grade this by population density? Overall population? Birth rate?

Originally Posted by tantalus

You will have to help me out here, what do you mean by natural. If one person lives in a modern skyscraper, and another at the foot of this building, in a dilapidated house below standard building regulations (because there poor) and an earthquake occurs, the poor person dies, the skyscraper inhabitant survives, is there death deemed natural or due to man-made causes. and even if your are correct, I am not sure what it proves, regarding my opinion? And you havnt supplied a fact to support this statement, as i said guilty as i am. not that i see it as a matter of guilt, its reasonable to voice an opinion.

Earthquake is quite natural. Last time I checked we can't make it happen yet. The poor person died due to natural causes. The rich person survived due to advanced technology, damage to the environment, and depletion of resources that you are so concerned about.

Originally Posted by tantalus

Nature is predictable too, when you look from the right scale with enough detail, we just cant see it all the time.

If we can't see it all the time, then it's not predictable. Otherwise we would see it.

Originally Posted by tantalus

Now, I have done by best, considering the can of worms I opened. Undoubtely I have failed for the most part and left my points look like swiss cheese (awful cliche but iam at my deathbed here), but you gotta love a tryer, or something……
Finally, as you said - opinion

I just have a problem with people who put the environment before people, usually socialists who want to transfer wealth from the haves to the have-nots under the barrel of the gun in the name of equality.

Capitalism is the fairest of all systems. It makes the most efficient use of our limited resources. Socialism gives the false impression of equality. It seeks equal outcome rather than equal opportunity.