Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Time for a topic on What is going to help prevent Global Warming

Recommended Posts

gator    14

Part of the problem with the climate change theory argument is that the media shows it as a 1 to 1 argument; even the rational media shows it this way. The fact is that about 97% GLOBALLY (not 50%, and not just being paid by the US government as the weather network guy suggests) of scientists agree that human activity is causing climate change.

As specs pointed out, this guy is not a scientist and probably falls toward the left end of the graph below. He put no facts forward other than quoting a number of "scientists" (31,000) (assumedly of which he is one) who signed a petition. The petition was convened in 1998. I can only imagine the difference in available information and processing ability between then and now. Here is the website.

The sponsor of the petition, Frederick Seitz, in addition to being a climate change denier, played a key role in helping the tobacco industry produce uncertainty concerning the health impacts of smoking... probably murdering tens of thousands who might have quit had he not created this uncertainty. Anybody here know someone who continued to smoke because they heard that some scientists said it wasn't bad for you? He also supported the Vietnam war, promoted increasing nuclear armament, and denied the impact of CFCs and pesticides on the environment. He also attempted to make one of his anti-climate change theory documents look like it was published by they National Academy of Sciences.

Basically, your all 'round great guy. (In fact, he did do some good charitable work and held some prestigious positions until he started to lose his mind in about the mid-1980s while working for RJ Reynolds Tobacco).

Back to the petition... Of the 31,000, over 10,000 specialize in "General Engineering and General Science". Also included are doctors and veterinarians. There is a group of about 4000 that might be qualified to provide a knowledgeable response, but there is no guarantee that they even practice the field in which they were educated and some may, in fact, be working for companies that might benefit by denial. I know a guy who graduated in biology who is a VP at a transport company (and, no, he didn't sign the petition). 31,000 represents 1/2 of 1% of the 6.2 million scientists in the US.

Interesting, too, that they list signers by state and by name, but not by field of study, even though they clearly have this information. I randomly picked one name (one of the 9000 PhD's) and looked him up. He was born in 1924 and specialized at Bell Labs in the elastic constants of certain solids.

Below is a graph from Skeptical Science.

 Expertise_vs_Consensus.jpg

Skeptical Science is pro climate change theory but, of course, so are most scientists. 

And before we start to nit pick, even gravity is a theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

So several thousand years ago when northern Alberta was a Tropical climate, MAN did that?  when the earth was covered in Ice from pole to equator, MAN did that?  

The earth has gone through several Warming and cooling cycled in its life.some far more drastic than others from Ice age to Tropical and back.  The say that MAN is the cause is frankly arrogant.  We may have input but we are not the cause and we sure as hell arent the cure.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

What do physicians, vets and 'general' scientists know about climate change?

Another very relevant question; ATP's are trained professionals that spend a considerable amount of time moving through the globe's atmosphere making observations etc.; so why aren't their 'opinions' included in these surveys?

What about the opinions of sea going Captains?

Heck, the weather masters haven't been able to guess what the weather will look like in my area, even over a 24 hour period, for quite a long time now and that's probably the case over much of the continent too. So why then are so many of us prepared to accept their very long range predictions as gospel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

Interesting post, DEFCON. It seems to speak to both sides of the argument.

The survey of 31,000 referred to is a climate change denier petition, which implied (in 1998) that a lot of scientists do not believe that man has had any effect on the environment. So, your post underlines the fact that denier petition referred to by the weather station guy is invalid.

The second part of my post refers to the current position of scientists who actually work in the field of environmental science.

Edit to add:

And, with respect to your reference to weather vs climate, although many sports analysts (:scientist) could probably tell me the outcome of a playoff series between Golden State and the Raptors (:climate), even they could probably could not tell the outcome of any particular possession during a specific game (:weather).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
1 hour ago, boestar said:

So several thousand years ago when northern Alberta was a Tropical climate, MAN did that?  when the earth was covered in Ice from pole to equator, MAN did that?

There has been natural changes to the climate through the eons (not a few thousands of years) and unnatural ones. In the past couple of hundred years, man has drained entire seas, drowned and chopped down CO2 eating forests, changed the course of rivers, poisoned entire watersheds, wiped out entire species by many and various means and brought others to the brink of extinction, even changed the salinity of Hudson Bay. To suggest that we cannot affect the environment is simply ignoring the impact of man on the earth.

In the case of CO2, our effect seems superficially minimal ... a degree or two over a century, until you realize that, in many places, that couple of degrees (even 1/2 of a degree) means the difference between millions and millions of litres of solid water becoming liquid and millions more evaporating and falling as precipitation somewhere else vs remaining in the ocean. The water temperature change is killing things like coral reefs that have existed for millions of years and have very tight temperature survival ranges. What will happen if the temperature of the water kills huge swaths of plankton, responsible for removal of up to 50% of CO2 from the atmosphere?

There were people back in the day of Joseph Bazalgette who denied that cholera was caused by people dumping their crap in the streets of London and that his sewer system was a waste of time and money. It wasn't until the Great Stink that people started to think that sewers were a good idea. Too bad CO2 doesn't stink.

If man cannot affect the environment, we might as well dump our crap in the lakes and rivers without treatment, our garbage in the street and go back to using pesticides that wipe out wild species, use phosphates to wash our clothes, turn our skies black with coal ash, spew NO2 into the air from our smelters to produce acid rain and go back to using Freon 12 in our leaky air conditioners. Just because CO2 is invisible and odorless doesn't necessarily make it any less damaging than just-as,-if-not-more,-natural human feces.

If we do nothing, we probably won't be here to see the effects of our greed. But generations to come will suffer the consequences.

Opinion does not change the facts and strong theories that have been put forward by (to quote the simple minded superlatives of a famous denyer) many, many, many scientists who have the data and knowledge to use it. As was underlined by DEFCON, deniers such as Frederick Seitz use invalid petitions to try to support their position.

Scientists are not always right, but they are the best sources of information that we have. After all, we rely on the scientists being right every time we fly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

Thanks gator.

I hold a mixed bag of views on this topic.

 Having lived long enough to see climate change occurring in real time, just as it has always done, I'm prepared to accept the change as a factual finding. I also remain convinced that the activities of man are responsible for the introduction of all sorts of nasty unnatural chemistry to the environment, which certainly has a significant impact on the overall volatility of the situation.

Man himself is much like a fungal infection spreading over planet Earth. Human impact on climate is only one of the ongoing degradations we're responsible for. Accordingly, until our numbers are substantially reduced, debating climate change is just our way of keeping busy until the whole thing comes crashing down.

Just my opinion.

 

 

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

I do agree that we are overpopulating the earth. If we had half as many people our output would probably keep it below the level where it tips the scales.

But that is a whole 'nother topic. It's fun making babies and, thankfully, most of them live nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mo32a    284

Gator

You are talking about pollution not climate change. I'm all for reducing pollution in all it's forms but to think that is going to change the climate is a big leap.

The climate will change despite our efforts to stop it, reduce our pollution to make everybody's life better now, I'm all in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

I agree that my examples are popularly referred to as pollution rather than climate change. I also agree that the climate changes as part of a normal cycle of the earth. That doesn't mean that we aren't doing things to negatively affect our climate in the short term.

And, frankly, mo32a, I find your selfish reference to only caring about making our lives better now without any consideration for the bigger picture and future generations appalling. Almost as blind as the disinterest in sewage in London 200 years ago until it started to affect their olfactory senses.

Every "polluting" action has a consequence that is often unseen at the outset. Sometimes, it is human disease, sometimes the extinction of a species, sometimes the change of an "environment"  or "climate".

The pollution of the "climate" of Lake Erie by phosphates did not manifest itself in phosphates floating on the water... it manifested itself in algae growth. A few years of phosphate took many years to fix, even in a relatively local and high turnover lake.

The "lake" that CO2 pollutes is the atmosphere... that and water are the two things that makes Earth different than almost every other known planet and makes us the only planet that we know of that supports life. Some very smart people think that our current rate of pollution of that "lake' will manifest in increased temperatures, changes in weather patterns and have extrapolated that increase into loss of ice, higher sea temperatures and general climate change. I have not seen anything substantial that provides another outcome beyond opinion, a very small number of fringe scientists and an excuse by deniers that the climate will change anyway, so there is no reason to do anything about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm    646
15 hours ago, gator said:

I agree that my examples are popularly referred to as pollution rather than climate change. I also agree that the climate changes as part of a normal cycle of the earth. That doesn't mean that we aren't doing things to negatively affect our climate in the short term.

And, frankly, mo32a, I find your selfish reference to only caring about making our lives better now without any consideration for the bigger picture and future generations appalling. Almost as blind as the disinterest in sewage in London 200 years ago until it started to affect their olfactory senses.

Every "polluting" action has a consequence that is often unseen at the outset. Sometimes, it is human disease, sometimes the extinction of a species, sometimes the change of an "environment"  or "climate".

The pollution of the "climate" of Lake Erie by phosphates did not manifest itself in phosphates floating on the water... it manifested itself in algae growth. A few years of phosphate took many years to fix, even in a relatively local and high turnover lake.

The "lake" that CO2 pollutes is the atmosphere... that and water are the two things that makes Earth different than almost every other known planet and makes us the only planet that we know of that supports life. Some very smart people think that our current rate of pollution of that "lake' will manifest in increased temperatures, changes in weather patterns and have extrapolated that increase into loss of ice, higher sea temperatures and general climate change. I have not seen anything substantial that provides another outcome beyond opinion, a very small number of fringe scientists and an excuse by deniers that the climate will change anyway, so there is no reason to do anything about it.

 

Gator re only caring about making our lives better now without any consideration for the bigger picture etc, I HUMBLY submit that is exactly what folks who vote for NDP governments and also for our current free spending debt riding Liberal Federal Government do. they are putting future generations deeply into debt without any consideration for the consequences.  :064:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fido    380
3 hours ago, Malcolm said:

they are putting future generations deeply into debt without any consideration for the consequences

and doing nothing to affect the outcome of so called "Man-made Global Warming"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deicer    457
1 hour ago, gator said:

... clearly not getting a lot of support among this group....

 

It's a tough battle ;-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

Lake Erie has been chocking to death on algae that's being fed by farm fertilizers for the past 6 years and it just keeps getting worse. The products causing the problems are likely new age super potent fertilizer formulations developed by Big-Agra to support the ridiculously high yields coming off our farm fields today, but without regard for the collateral consequences. 

From the linked Noah satellite photo it's easy to visualize the process as it begins (again); the sources of the pollutants are obvious.

https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/modis/modis.php?region=e&page=1&template=sub&image=t1.17162.1555.LakeErie.143.250m.jpg

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
st27    124

I think Erie (and the rest of the Lakes and St Lawrence River)has been suffering for a lot longer than 6 years.....untreated sewage being dumped since the beginning of time (treatment began in the 70's), phosphates from detergents, oil (remember the Cuyahoga River catching fire?) and generally human ignorance....and yet where do the cities in the Great Lakes basin get their drinking water??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich Pulman    494

Anyone who claims to know for sure that climate change is man-made is not a scientist.

Anyone who doesn't understand the preceding sentence is not a scientist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

The predictions suggest the planet will be largely coal free by 2040 and promise renewable costs will decline significantly as related technologies improve.

The article presents an argument that's structurally similar to the one that sold the public on the current gigantic renewable project failures that we're just beginning to pay for now. We must be gullible; the promise of cheap clean power from nukes came from the same sources, government and industry, long before the renewables lie was pushed on society.

Sorry, but there's just too many people being added to the global population every day to take any long range planning seriously.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

 

Guess that carbon tax is paying dividends already!!  <_<:Scratch-Head:

" Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday"

" Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/?utm_term=.08450a1f9d7c

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

We should maybe be more focused now on the shrinking northern ice cap, the new ice accretion in the south and the impact mass redistribution may impart to the planet's axis of rotation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

Interesting....

" Al Gore is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management. The firm has more than $15 billion of assets under management and focuses on investing in low-carbon generating sustainable companies, according to its website."

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/23/buffett-partner-munger-says-al-gore-is-an-idiot-but-became-rich.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
On 2017-6-19 at 5:32 PM, Jaydee said:

 

Guess that carbon tax is paying dividends already!!  <_<:Scratch-Head:

" Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday"

" Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/?utm_term=.08450a1f9d7c

Selective headlining.

The article questions why there has been a slight growth in the the Antarctic sea ice while water temperatures were rising and shows that scientists were exploring possible reasons why. It also points out that the Arctic was still experiencing significant loss. If you read the entire article, it doesn't support your implication that the long-term science is wrong.

Article is from 2013. 

Expect Trump to quote it soon.

The 2017 NASA report shows decreases at both poles... in fact the Antarctic saw a significant decrease since that article... more than 2 million sq km. 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

.... but I don't expect you to acknowledge current information (from the exact source your 4 year old data came from)... it doesn't further your position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon The Loon    296

Those who map year to year differences of ice/no ice are delusional.

So to are those who map differences in decades or even centuries.

Climate is measured in millennia.

The Gore-Zuki fraud continues.

Edited by Moon The Loon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this