Climate Change- myth or reality?

[Norwich]

Matt25:

Should that not be Princes St? Sorry to be picky but Queen St is in Glasgow and I’d rather not be confused with that sort of city.

Your right, I was thinking of Queens Street round here, I have to visit there sometime towards the end of the month with my Daughter in law, it must have been on my mind.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

Norwich:

Myth or reality? Lets try the following postulations.

Its a myth and we do do something, result = no change.
.

Sorry, but your conclusion is deadly wrong. Implementing draconian policies and removing the availability of useful products results in death.

How many have died in third world countries because of the lack of adequate refrigeration. This lack was caused by the same attitude that you seem to be promoting. “We kind of sort of suspect that refrigerants may be doing something harmful so we will force the use of vastly more expensive ( prohibitively expensive) technology.”

 

[JamesD]

Munda cor meum:

Sorry, but your conclusion is deadly wrong. Implementing draconian policies and removing the availability of useful products results in death.

How many have died in third world countries because of the lack of adequate refrigeration. This lack was caused by the same attitude that you seem to be promoting. “We kind of sort of suspect that refrigerants may be doing something harmful so we will force the use of vastly more expensive ( prohibitively expensive) technology.”

Another example is the banning of DDT which is causing the deaths of tremendous numbers of people from Malaria
aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm
“According to U.N. estimates, malaria kills one child every 30 seconds and more than a million people each year.”
Jim

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

Er, Hello!!! I only got part way through a list of American firsts, up to the bit about the internet. It was thought up and developed by a Fin. Thats from FINLAND, which to my knowledge ain’t part of America yet.

Now excuse me whilst I go back to the rest of the justification for America polluting the world

I didn’t say America or Al Gore invented the Inernet. It was and is America that runs the computers and the infrastructure on which the World Wide Web runs. Other counties do it too. But America makes more computers, creates more infrastructure, and innovate more computing technology than Finland or any other country dreams about.

Even if that were NOT the case (which it is), you would be arguing from both sides of your mouth - saying America is a greedy capitalistic product-producing nation that actually doesn’t make any worthy products.

Let’s get a real argument.

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

I don’t think I’ll bother. Anyone that can believe this load of claptrap has to be beyong logical argument or redemption.

ps. If your so good why can’t the African countries afford your AIDS medicines.? (and thats only one little question)

Read a real history book. Or, just look at our GNP, our output, our military, and our international aid figures. Do some research.
Perhaps you can read the section in Winston Churchill’s history of WWII where he was practically dancing a jig when America was bombed by Japan - not because we sufferred losses for he was too much of a man - but because he knew America would be on his side against the Nazis and the Fascists and that there was NO DOUBT we would prevail.

You obviously don’t have a clue about America so you may want to stop while you are behind. If you’re looking for clues, get your nose out of the liberal media garbage heap that is funded by America Haters r Us. It always helps to have some information with your whine.

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

Of course I don’t but, I’m not the one telling everyone how wonderful the UK is or how Europe is always right, or how we invented everything. If your going to set yourselves up as the Cowboy in the White Hat and to tell everyone how you are going to save the world by using all the recources then you had better make sure you are damn right. One of the greatest gifts man has is humility and the ability to see, acknowledge and try to correct his own faults. All I, and most of the rest of the world hear from yourselves is how wonderful you all are and how your going to save the world.

I have worked with and alongside Americans for many many years and they are some of the greatest people I know. Those who have had the courage to go out and face the rest of the world, not as tourists but to live and work in other countries. They also had the courage to admit faults and to try, in their own way, to allay others fears. They didn’t go around patting each other on the back and telling everybody how wonderful they were, they were realistic enougn to recognise that they are only part of this world, not all of it. They were also willing to accept that the Administartion in America AS WITH ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WORLD WIDE had its own axe to grind and was anything but perfect. That its actions were more for the individuals of the country and not necessarily taken from a world perspective.

You make zero sense Norwich. You say that I don’t know anything about America because I don’t live in Europe but that you know everything about America because you go to other countries. I could see your beef if I was spouting off about other countries but you are the one criticizing the US’s use of resources. I simply defended our use of resources - which could be a similar defense applied to other countries. But you think us and other countries shoud just assume the world is baking to death and act on irrational and anti-capitalistic theories.

I have news for you - there’s a lot of lazy, selfish and arrogant Americans. It’s called sin. America has not always done everything right - neither has any other country. There’s also a lot of heoric, wonderful, caring Americans. These Americans give great heaps of their money and their time to help those less fortunate. America was right there giving aid to the Tsunami victims while the UN was still talking about how little we were doing and doing nothing themselves. America is giving more in AIDs help programs in Africa than we ever have - and more than any other country. And the fact about more world aid than all other countries combined - it’s true. These are facts. You can criticize us for what is wrong and you know to be true. But you cannot criticize us for what you believe to be true and false. And I most certainly will not do the latter - because that is false humility - it is artificial and it is self-defeating. I will not be part of that - just as you don’t see me criticizing other countries like you are criticizing us.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would do your research and you would acknowledge what America has done that is right. I love and work with people from other countries. I don’t have to live in their country to work with them, support them, teach them and learn from them. I’ve worked and had friendships with people from India, Pakistan, Egypt, China, Japan, Korea, England, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, France, Canda, Brazil and others. I take great joy in learning about other cultures. And what I will not do is tell demeaning stories about any of these nationalities as you express about Americans.

 

[bapcathluth]

Although I don’t agree that climate change is really a myth or that we Americans should just continue to drive our SUV’s alone to work everyday, I do take issue with Norwich’s example of the “ugly Americans” in the Tartan shop. The stereotype of the American in plaid plants, talking loudly is like all stereotypes-- unfair. When people hold their stereotypes dear, they fail to see all the exceptions.

It is true that Americans have a great deal of pride, and I can see that it could be very galling for others to listen to this boasting. I think it is because we are an immigrant country and our forebears instilled this gratitude for our country in us.

I know that my grandmother always said, “Be thankful that you are American, Christian and white.” She wasn’t putting down other religions or races but acknowledging that they have a tough row to hoe. We Americans truly do think our country is the best, which is very egotistical, but our immigrant roots have done this to us. Our ancestors left places they thought were very bad compared to here, and their stories have been passed down to us.

 

[INRI]

Couple of facts need to be stated here.

1. The earth has been considerably warmer within the span of recorded history. The sky didn’t fall. During the local temperature maximum of the Middle Ages, there was agriculture taking place in Greenland that would be unimaginable now. Don’t seem to recall too many automobiles or industrial plants back then. Temperature dropped from there to a low in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s and has been gradually rising since then.
2. Most of the warming in this century took place took place BEFORE 1950, well before all the major pollution from increase in automobiles and industrialization of China etc. took place. There was actually a fall in temperature from about 1940 to 1975 leading to (and I’m old enough to remember this) predictions of a new ice age. The same weather phenomenon used then to scare people are being used now to scare them about global warming.
3. Much of the warming data used to generate this scare comes from one data measuring system that is overly reliant on surface measurements influenced by the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE).

For more information, go to this link:
junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/POP_Quiz.htm
Having spent some time in the British Isles recently (2003), I can tell you that the British media is, in general, horrendously anti-American. It doesn’t surprise me that Norwich and Matt25 seem to be displaying a little anti-Americanism, they are surrounded by it everyday. Norwich and Matt25, turn off the Beeb, get your noses out of The Guardian, and don’t trust everything you read from the Rueters “News” Service. Two examples: go the following link and drop down to the part where it starts “Don’t mention the Navy”. telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/nbook09.xml Then, there’s this article melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/limmud%20media.pdf. Long, but well worth the read. Just my :twocents: .

 

[INRI]

Matt25:

Even if the hypotheses were untrue would we not anyway be under an obligation to steward the earth’s resources wisely. Oil, gas and coal will eventually run out and emissions produced by their use are certainly harmful. For the sake of future generations should we not scale down our use of them and explore renewable energy resources and energy conservation through simple things like increased insulation?

Uh Matt25,
We got a problem here. You make an assumption here that needs to be corrected. You say that the oil, gas and coal will eventually run out. I say that they won’t and here’s why:
Let’s say that the known reserves of oil in the world are 3000 barrels of oil (just picking a number for convenience). Let us also say that the current usage of the world is 100 barrels a year. How long before the world runs out of oil? Answer: Never. You might have been tempted to answer 30yrs after doing some simple math. That is the answer in a mathematical model, but not an economic model. The economic model corresponds to the real world. As a commodity gets scarce, the price for it goes up. When that happens, those forced to to pay those higher prices make adjustments to use less of it, driving down demand, and hence the price. In Europe (and especially Britain), where petrol is much more expensive than in the U.S. because of taxation, people adjust by driving smaller cars with diesel engines. Eventually, if a commodity is too expensive to pay for, alternatives take their place. Alternatives are being found all the time that make supplies of certain existing commodities irrelevant (Ex: we no longer have a huge demand for whale oil, which was a major commodity in the 19th century). This is all because of the law of supply and demand. In fact all predictions about the imminant collapse of certain commodity supplies have been proven wrong. In the mid 1980’s, Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich (of The Population Bomb fame) made a wager with economist Julian Bond. Ehrlich believed that the price of various commodities like oil and copper, adjusted for inflation, would go up in 10yrs. Bond believed they would go down. Bond let Ehrlich pick any 10 commodities and select the time frame for when their prices would be checked again. At the end of the time frame (approx. 10 yrs), Ehrlich had to pay off Bond; every single commodity dropped in price. With regards to oil, not only have steps been taken to moderate consumption from the big, bad 1970’s, but proven oil reserves have increased about 10-fold since President Carter famously predicted the end of petroleum supplies.
Once an economical alternative to petroleum is found, you can bet the farm that everyone will jump on it. Already, there are predictions that in 10 years, more than 50% of the vehicle sold in the U.S. will incorporate hybrid technology. If petroleum prices stay high, the conversion will happen even faster. When hydrogen cell technology becomes practical, we’ll have more petroleum than we could possibly use. I reccommend the following links to get more information:
fumento.com/environment/gas.html
aei.org/news/newsID.21811,filter.all/news_detail.asp

 

[buffalo]

geezerbob:

We are in a natural cycle of global warming which may be slightly increased by man’s actions. Despite the tree-huggers’ assertations to the contrary, I feel that there is little or nothing we can do about it (just like stopping a tsunami). Remember that a major volcanic eruption spews more particulates into the atmosphere in a few hours or days that the sum total of what man has put there during his entire existence. Since what a volcano puts there is natural, is it proper to call it pollution?

The major source of hydrocarbons in the air is from the rotting vegetation (biomass) on the forest floor.

 

[Brad]

bapcathluth:

It is true that Americans have a great deal of pride, and I can see that it could be very galling for others to listen to this boasting. I think it is because we are an immigrant country and our forebears instilled this gratitude for our country in us.

I know that my grandmother always said, “Be thankful that you are American, Christian and white.” She wasn’t putting down other religions or races but acknowledging that they have a tough row to hoe. We Americans truly do think our country is the best, which is very egotistical, but our immigrant roots have done this to us. Our ancestors left places they thought were very bad compared to here, and their stories have been passed down to us.

Aside from perhaps the “white” part, there is nothing wrong with what your grandmother said and there is nothing wrong with being happy to live where you live. If you were not, you could leave.

A sense of patriotism is something everyone should have. Everyone should love to live in their own country and promote it’s good points. The reason some cannot or do not is because they are not free - they are either ruled by dictators, communist regimes, or socialist type governments.

It is not egotistical to love where you live - your family should live in the best place you possible can, and, if for some reason you are resource limited in where you can live then you should focus on the positive aspects of where you live for the psychological well-being of the family.

Now, I would never sit here and argue with a non-American that America is necessarily better than their country. I just promote the good points of America - and I would expect them to do likewise with their country. Similary, I don’t criticize entire countries based on stereotypes either - tht would be unfair to its people and not just.

 

[Brad]

INRI:

Uh Matt25,
We got a problem here. You make an assumption here that needs to be corrected. You say that the oil, gas and coal will eventually run out. I say that they won’t and here’s why:
Let’s say that the known reserves of oil in the world are 3000 barrels of oil (just picking a number for convenience). Let us also say that the current usage of the world is 100 barrels a year. How long before the world runs out of oil? Answer: Never. You might have been tempted to answer 30yrs after doing some simple math. That is the answer in a mathematical model, but not an economic model. The economic model corresponds to the real world. As a commodity gets scarce, the price for it goes up. When that happens, those forced to to pay those higher prices make adjustments to use less of it, driving down demand, and hence the price. In Europe (and especially Britain), where petrol is much more expensive than in the U.S. because of taxation, people adjust by driving smaller cars with diesel engines. Eventually, if a commodity is too expensive to pay for, alternatives take their place. Alternatives are being found all the time that make supplies of certain existing commodities irrelevant (Ex: we no longer have a huge demand for whale oil, which was a major commodity in the 19th century). This is all because of the law of supply and demand. In fact all predictions about the imminant collapse of certain commodity supplies have been proven wrong. In the mid 1980’s, Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich (of The Population Bomb fame) made a wager with economist Julian Bond. Ehrlich believed that the price of various commodities like oil and copper, adjusted for inflation, would go up in 10yrs. Bond believed they would go down. Bond let Ehrlich pick any 10 commodities and select the time frame for when their prices would be checked again. At the end of the time frame (approx. 10 yrs), Ehrlich had to pay off Bond; every single commodity dropped in price. With regards to oil, not only have steps been taken to moderate consumption from the big, bad 1970’s, but proven oil reserves have increased about 10-fold since President Carter famously predicted the end of petroleum supplies.
Once an economical alternative to petroleum is found, you can bet the farm that everyone will jump on it. Already, there are predictions that in 10 years, more than 50% of the vehicle sold in the U.S. will incorporate hybrid technology. If petroleum prices stay high, the conversion will happen even faster. When hydrogen cell technology becomes practical, we’ll have more petroleum than we could possibly use. I reccommend the following links to get more information:
fumento.com/environment/gas.html
aei.org/news/newsID.21811,filter.all/news_detail.asp

Excellent points!

 

[INRI]

Matt25:

The USA has 5% of the worlds population and consumes 25% of resources used in any calendar year. If the Climate Change hypothesis was true then more than any other country in the world the United States would have to undergo radical lifestyle changes. Given these facts it is no surprise that so many Americans are resistant to the hypotheses. It is a resistance based not on science but on a reluctance to change.
QUOTE]

Just quibbling here, but Canadians use proportionately as much fuel as Americans do, so they would also have to undergo radical lifestyle changes.
The reluctance to ratify Kyoto has nothing to do with resistance to change, merely a resistance to driving our economy in the toilet, while much of the developing world (read China, India, Brazil etc.) has no restrictions whatsoever. I imagine that’s probably the reason the Australians didn’t ratify Kyoto either. FYI, even countries that have ratified Kyoto (read EU, Russia, Japan) aren’t making their pollution goals, and may not ever be able to meet them. The following link is also very useful.
meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Derr/strange_science.html

Note that China is set to overtake the US in CO2 emissions in the near future. Read the article before responding to this post.

 

[pnewton]

Norwich:

Postulation 1, its a myth.

Its a myth and we do do something, result = no change.
Its a myth but we don’t do anything, result = no change.

Postulation 2, its true.

Its true and we do do something, result = no change.
Its true and we don’t do anything, result = catastrophe.

One of the basic problems with trying a Pascal’s Wager approach is found in the third statement. “Doing something” always results in a change. If the “something” that is done cost, then there is an economic change.

National leaders should always weigh the economic cost of any environmental legislation against the effect. If companies are hit with enough costly regulation, then business will suffer and production will diminish. If production worldwide diminshes enough, then there are fewer goods to go around. SInce prices rise due to shortages, the poor always are the first to do without.

In other words, there is no free lunch.

 

[jsk]

I’m sure that the climate is changing, but I’m not sure that man is the cause. The climate has changed many times in the past, even before man existed.

While I’m not sure if man is causing the current climate change, I am sure that man in general is being careless with industry and pollution, and the impact on the planet is a bad thing. I do know for sure that when I live in rural areas with cleaner air my health is significantly better than when I live in urban areas with heavy pollution.

 

[Norwich]

pnewton:

One of the basic problems with trying a Pascal’s Wager approach is found in the third statement. “Doing something” always results in a change. If the “something” that is done cost, then there is an economic change.

National leaders should always weigh the economic cost of any environmental legislation against the effect. If companies are hit with enough costly regulation, then business will suffer and production will diminish. If production worldwide diminshes enough, then there are fewer goods to go around. SInce prices rise due to shortages, the poor always are the first to do without.

In other words, there is no free lunch.

So in other words if the monetary value is too high humanity is expendable!!

Interesting hypothesis, pity we wouldn’t be around to se the results on the financial balance books, come to think of it what balance books?

 

[pnewton]

Norwich:

So in other words if the monetary value is too high humanity is expendable!!

No. Humanity is on both sides of the equation. The economic impact of chasing what might be hogwash must be weighed, for the love of humanity. We can not blindly buy into the global warming scenario without evidence.

 

[Norwich]

pnewton:

No. Humanity is on both sides of the equation. The economic impact of chasing what **might **be hogwash must be weighed, for the love of humanity. We can not blindly buy into the global warming scenario without evidence.

And therein lays the problem. I agree with you when you say we cannot blindly buy into this scenario but, at what point does it become either real or not. If one beleives many of the scientists we must wait until incontrivertable proof is available. The contention of many is by then it will be too late. Its a biut like saying I won’t beleive in death until I die.

Therefore the question is not one of Does Global Warming exist or not its a case of when we act upon it.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

Norwich:

And therein lays the problem. I agree with you when you say we cannot blindly buy into this scenario but, at what point does it become either real or not. If one beleives many of the scientists we must wait until incontrivertable proof is available. The contention of many is by then it will be too late. Its a biut like saying I won’t beleive in death until I die.

Therefore the question is not one of Does Global Warming exist or not its a case of when we act upon it.

I think I understand your reasoning, but what I do not understand is the crisis. You say, I think, that we are unsure if Global Warming exists, but by the time we are sure, it will be too late to do anything about it.

What you have not explained, is why global warming is bad. Granted, a significant and sudden climate change could be catastrophic, but that does not seem to be happening here.

Is there no “good side” to global warming?

 

[pnewton]

Is in fact global warming worse than global cooling. We know from history what an ice age is like. Should not our compassion for humanity cause us to leap up and prevent this catastrophe? I have seen about as much evidence on way as the other. (e.g., mean Earth temperature still cool for an interglacial period, cooling and thickening of interior of Antartica)