Ch. 10 - Global Warming and Psychic Claims: A Comparison
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:47 pm
Ch. 10 - Global Warming and Psychic Claims: A Comparison
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
In any event, when I was fairly convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming, I did become emotionally invested in that position. After some heated arguments with some people on another forum, I started doing some research (so as to argue my position better), but I started to realize the data was much more complex than I had imagined. Since then I have backed off considerably, although this topic still gets me fired up so I have to remind myself of that fact.Rinolio wrote:I resisted (although many "global warming" advocates do not) "cherry-picking segments that could have made the numbers look even more compelling or suspicious depending on how I chose to present the data. Starting or ending a time segment with high or low scores is the easiest way to accomplish this goal.
New York Times wrote: The Climate and National Security
Published: August 17, 2009
One would think that by now most people would have figured out that climate change represents a grave threat to the planet. One would also have expected from Congress a plausible strategy for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that lie at the root of the problem.
That has not happened. The House has passed a climate bill that is not as strong as needed, but is a start. There are doubts about whether the Senate will pass any bill, given the reflexive opposition of most Republicans and unfounded fears among many Democrats that rising energy costs will cripple local industries.
The problem, when it comes to motivating politicians, is that the dangers from global warming — drought, famine, rising seas — appear to be decades off. But the only way to prevent them is with sacrifices in the here and now: with smaller cars, bigger investments in new energy sources, higher electricity bills that will inevitably result once we put a price on carbon.
Mainstream scientists warn that the longer the world waits, the sooner it will reach a tipping point beyond which even draconian measures may not be enough. Under one scenario, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, now about 380 parts per million, should not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million. But keeping emissions below that threshold will require stabilizing them by 2015 or 2020, and actually reducing them by at least 60 percent by 2050.
That is why Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — no alarmist — has warned that “what we do in the next two or three years will determine our future.” And he said that two years ago.
Advocates of early action have talked about green jobs, about keeping America competitive in the quest for new technologies, and about one generation’s moral obligation to the next. Those are all sound arguments. They have not been enough to fully engage the public, or overcome the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry.
Proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national security. Climate- induced crises like drought, starvation, disease and mass migration, they argue, could unleash regional conflicts and draw in America’s armed forces, either to help keep the peace or to defend allies or supply routes.
This is increasingly the accepted wisdom among the national security establishment. A 2007 report published by the CNA Corporation, a Pentagon-funded think tank, spoke ominously of climate change as a “threat multiplier” that could lead to wide conflict over resources.
This line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. Both Senator John Kerry, an advocate of strong climate change legislation, and former Senator John Warner, a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, say they have begun to stress the national security argument to senators who are still undecided about how they will vote on climate change legislation.
One can only hope that these arguments turn the tide in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Warner and like- minded military leaders must keep pressing their case, with help from the Pentagon and the White House. National security is hardly the only reason to address global warming, but at this point anything that advances the cause is welcome.
But it seems inescapable, Geo, that the world is warming rapidly, though the rate differs for different areas. I think that doubters have had their own reasons for using anomalies in complex sets of data to make us think that the picture is complicated, when actually it isn't so much. When you read reports of the loss of Arctic sea ice ( such as http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090810/ap_ ... e_retreats), what else can you conclude than that something very significant is happening?geo wrote: I do, of course, know there might be something to global warming, but we do need to understand the process better before coming up with grand, overreaching solutions that very well might not do anything good and may actually do harm. I think the most reasonable position is caution, but not panic.
Interbane wrote:I agree with you geo about caution and not panic being the wise course. I also think it's not entirely a bad thing that so many people are on the global warming bandwagon.
Our planet has a long history of climate change and it's possible that the current warming trend has nothing or very little to do with human activity. We may not be seeing the big picture very well. That said, I'm all for reducing carbon emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil and developing greener technologies. These are things we should do regardless of whether the current warming trend is driven by greenhouse gases.DWill wrote:But it seems inescapable, Geo, that the world is warming rapidly, though the rate differs for different areas. I think that doubters have had their own reasons for using anomalies in complex sets of data to make us think that the picture is complicated, when actually it isn't so much.
There does seem to be evidence that is inconsistent with the notion that Mount Kiliminjaro's glaciers are melting because of global warming (just as there is evidence inconsistent that the sinking of the Titanic was foretold by paranormal powers). First, the ice fields on Kiliminjaro have varied throughout history; they have not simply started to retreat recently (Thompson et al. 2002). Second, the current melting started over a hundred years ago (before global warming was described), and similar patterns have been found on Rwenzori and Mount Kenya (Kaser et al. 2004). Third, the air temperature has remained relatively constant, indicating that other factors are likely causing melting (Kaser et al. 2004). Fourth, tropical glaciers are impacted by a wide variety of inputs (not just air temperature) such as incoming shortwave radiation, precipitation, cloudiness, and air humidity (Kaser 1999). Fifth, historically, has had a greater glacier field when temperatures were warmer than in recent times, and within the last hundred years the glaciers have been retreating both during cooler and warmer conditions (Michaels 2004). Sixth, plausible alternatives have been suggested as the causal factors for the vanishing glaciers on Kiliminjaro. For example, deforestation has altared the moisture content of the air blowing up the mountain (Mason 2003).
Bono wrote:Carnival is over. Commerce has been overheating markets and climates ... the sooty skies of the industrial revolution have changed scale and location, but now melt ice caps and make the seas boil in the time of technological revolution. Capitalism is on trial; globalization is, once again, in the dock. We used to say that all we wanted for the rest of the world was what we had for ourselves. Then we found out that if every living soul on the planet had a fridge and a house and an S.U.V., we would choke on our own exhaust.
I agree. To think we're going to be able to spend ourselves out of our environmental problems is crazy. That buying anything, such as a Prius, is seen as a "Green" action shows mostly the success of marketers in co-opting the environmental movement. Buying an automobile for private use is not green. I saw a letter in the N.Y. Times explaining how, due to the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries in hybrid cars, their footprint is actually greater than a Hummer H3's!geo wrote:
Another example of oversimplification is a tendency for people to really believe they are doing something great for the environment simply by driving a Prius. C'mon, get real. I mean that's something, sure, but probably we need to make major lifestyle changes to really address global warming (if it really is a direct consequence of human activities). We are only being delusional if we think driving a Prius and changing to compact fluorescents (CFs) will make a meaningful difference over the long run. (Not that we shouldn't do these things. We definitely should!)
I like what U2 frontman, Bono, said in a recent op-ed. The emphasis is mine.
Bono wrote:Carnival is over. Commerce has been overheating markets and climates ... the sooty skies of the industrial revolution have changed scale and location, but now melt ice caps and make the seas boil in the time of technological revolution. Capitalism is on trial; globalization is, once again, in the dock. We used to say that all we wanted for the rest of the world was what we had for ourselves. Then we found out that if every living soul on the planet had a fridge and a house and an S.U.V., we would choke on our own exhaust.
This is a good point and I think I need to remind myself from time to time not to critical-think my way out of seeing the forest for the trees. The arctic icecap is, in fact, in decline. Since 1979, it has declined about -10% per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. And it seems that the best explanation for this decline so far is anthropogenic global warming.DWill wrote: It could be that we've made a mistake in insisting on or denying global warming. The world is complex, and it is certain that there will be some data available that will seem to refute global warming. But what does this matter if, say, the arctic icecap is melting?