A Meeting of Skeptics

I read some of the so-called "NIPCC"'s views on climate change, and find that they routinely draw conclusions based on their own declarations of ignorance and the inadequacy of science to model the longest-range impacts of climate change accurately. The only science these people are trying to practice is psychology.

Miles:

You work pretty hard explaining to us that the debate on global warming is over:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/15/cnns-obrien-defends-gore-movie-declares-global-warming-debate-over

I would only offer this constructive criticism: Instead of spending your efforts in a repetitive attempt to quell debate; spend your time answering some of these questions:

http://newsbusters.org/issues-events-groups/hurricanes

Additionally, I don't believe that you would ridicule a Muslim for his beliefs, or a Christian that believes the world is only 6,000 years old. But, if someone questions that the world is getting warmer by a degree; and that global flooding and catasthrope are eminent unless we submit our policy making over to global governing bodies: they deserve ridicule?

Stop fighting so hard to stop debate and maybe we will all come to the conclusions that you seem to think are so obvious. To be honest, when you try to limit debate, it gives the perception that you aren't confident about the possible outcome of further debate.

Global warming is an issue that should take center-stage in politics here at home and abroad. Granted, there is no exact science to perdict climate change, but we have to realize we (humans) are having a negative impact on the environment.

http://www.greenbugz.com

Recycling Today For A Greener Tomorrow

At least the 'NIPCCs' admit that they don't know everything. All I ever hear from the 'other side' is "they're wrong!" or "they don't know what they're doing!" The 'other side' offers nothing at all, no proof of anything. They simply say that the other side is not correct.

The only people who make arguments like that are those who know that they have nothing but a personal interest in the issue at hand.

How about the 'other side' answer this: is all of this pollution good for us? I'd really like them to explain how it isn't hurting us or the environment in any way.

Global warming may not be quite the 'end of days' that some speak of, but it certainly is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason why the 'other side' is fighting so hard is greed, plain and simple.

This reminds me of the tobacco companies... I believe they made the same exact arguments... nah... the oil and coal industries wouldn't be like them... breathing in CO2 and methane is nothing like smoking... nope, nothing like them at all.

You told us how the Heartland Institute profits from denying global warming. How about telling us about those grants and profits and career-building events that warming-believers get? You imply here that they are motivated by nothing but nobility, and I don't believe you. Why? Because you offer no evidence. If your side is obviously right, let me make up my own mind, okay?

I'm pretty disgusted by how much the topic of climate change has been politicized. I honestly want to know what the impact we have on climate change but It's getting harder and harder to get the information I need. I just get more and more rhetoric and less and less information.

The Heartland Institute's web site is a perfect example. When articles starte with phrases like "The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say..." you know you're going to be subjected to propaganda instead of information an informed reader can use to form their own opinion. Newsbusters.org isn't much better when they charge their articles with phrases like "manmade global warming myth".

The advocates of the manmade global warming theory aren't any better with their fear mongering and propaganda (I just don't have any examples handy). The end result is I treat anything I read on the subject with a great deal of skepticism. Or I get tired of it all and just don't listen.

That IPCC website looks promising. It doesn't reek of rhetoric and appears to be somewhat neutral. /me bookmarks it.

I completely agree. It drives me absolutely crazy that protecting the environment is a political issue. How can that be?!? I'm not too bothered by the term alarmists because Gore's goal was to raise the alarm on the environment and it shouldn't be taken as an insult. From a scientific point, many of his arguments were very weak and some just plain wrong, but you can't deny the most important points such as overpopulation and pollution. I'm tired of the environment being trampled in the name of 'progress'. We must protect the earth, period. CO2 seems to follow temperature instead of temperature following CO2 since we've sent CO2 through the roof and temperatures haven't followed and other evidence shows the same thing. It's even a real possibility that we could even be entering a global cooling period which could be catastrophic(see ice core graphs). If this happens people like Gore will end up being mocked which would be unfortunate since something had to be done to raise awareness of the environment.

climate change is not entirely due to human activity the pole has been moving as long as we've known and if it continues to head in the same direction the north pole will be where Russia is right now meaning that all the frozen water at the current north pole will melt the temperature will drop in Russia and because the pole will no longer be on water and will be on land so the only way to prevent the effects of "global warming" which should be more correcctly called pole shifting or something along those lines is to increase the elevation of the coasts or build infrastructure such as canals or barriers on the coasts government mandates can't stop a natural inevitable process

The trouble with having a debate about this topic is that there is no a priori agreement about what the standards of proof are; that's why nobody can "prove" anything about climate change to general satisfaction.

Most of the detailed models of climate systems are intricate and full of assumptions that make them infinitely impeachable. Since no standards of proof exist, and there are legitimate grounds for attacking any possible forecast, we can't make truly fact-based forecasts with enough confidence that it would, in itself, provide a basis for policy. We have to make some policy judgments based on insufficient data; welcome to life as we have it.

Now that we've (hopefully) debunked the insistence on certainty and accepted the reality of knowing less than we need to, we have to assess what we do know and start making value judgments. The least wise way we can approach this is to consider only those values to which we can easily attach a dollar valuation, because we attach no such valuation to clean air, clean water, or various other things essential to life.

Firstly, can we assert that the global climate is changing? That's a point on which there is a pretty strong consensus available: yes.

Without delving into the intricate logic and underpinning assumptions of high-end climate modeling, and without digressing into arguments regarding climate change causation, what sorts of empirical effects can we reasonably expect from a global warming trend? Well, to simplify things to a fairly unreasonable degree, the climate system is known to absorb energy, store energy, and release energy.

The atmospheric part of the climate system is an elastic, compressible fluid, that stores energy and moves it from place to place. When you add energy to the system, the atmosphere starts moving around more, changing temperature more, and generally oscillating around the average increase in system energy levels; in other words, weather patterns change.

Now consider human dependence on stable weather patterns: whole civilizations have sprung up and died consequent to small climatic variations that changed the long–term distribution of rain very slightly. In this context, consider the southeastern US, and the plight of the people dependent on Lake Lanier: to Atlantans, climate change is no longer an abstract topic, but a crisis that poses the very real possibility that Atlanta, within the coming decade, will no longer be able to support its population.

It's not necessary or advisable to consider climate change as a stand-alone issue. The need to move to less-impactful and/or renewable energy arises from the simple fact that our energy status quo is not stable; there will never again be enough oil to satisfy the status quo. We're going to either make a pro-active transition to a way of living that doesn't depend on vanishing resources, or we'll continue as we are until those resources vanish completely, and the status quo will die a protracted and ugly death, along with most or all of humanity.

Good gamblers express a fundamental rule of risk management very succinctly: "Consider the odds, but always remember the stakes. When we think about policy regarding climate change and energy economies, we should think about what our short and long term choices are, and we should never forget that the stakes in our policy bets include the survival of the human species.

Energy corporations have a huge stake in this debate. If the global warming arguments are true and corrective actions are taken, then these corporations' profits will dwindle as we develop and use cleaner energy sources. To the corporate mind, that which reduces profits must be untrue. That which increases corporate profits must be true (or at least unfalse).

For large energy corporations to spend lots of money in support of false scientific conclusions is immoral, predictable, unethical, and very common. A couple of centuries ago, scientists sought a grant from the king or from the university. Now scientists seek money from corporations. The difference is that the king did not dictate the required findings before the experiments were conducted.

April 7, 2008

Dear Someone,

Why doesn’t the scientific community invent a machine that could suck up the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? A machine that could separate the carbon dioxide from the other elements in the atmosphere. Just like how white blood cells are separated from the red blood cells. Then, maybe solidify it and send to outer space using a rocket, releasing it beyond the outer limits of our solar system.

This machine could work 24 hours a day and should be placed around the world where there are heavy concentrations of these carbons. Say thousands of them everywhere.

If all the developed countries, concerned with the global warming, will put together their resources, I hope it can be done.

Thank you for reading this.

Your truly,

Rex V. Seno
Guizo, Mandaue City, Philippines.