M
MikeWM
Guest
A rather important international agreement called the Montreal Protocol. It shows how we can actually do these things, if we have the will.Please tell me how "We came together and solved the problem?’
Mike
- Status
Mike
S
steveandersen
Guest
I thought that it was awfully cold
I’m not really competent in that field to evaluate such things on my own. I think that few people are. So like most I do not evaluate the data myself but rely on the work of experts just as we would with medicine or the structure of a bridge. From my personal understanding of the science involved, the scientific method and how consensus is built, I can see how human activity can make a contribution to the natural variation in climate.
The increase in the frequency of weather related maxima and minima (not to mention lake effect snows in February
) are not proof but icing on the cake.I wouldn’t go that far. I am an open minded, skeptical, techie type.
Amen
Yes and that is political not scientific so data and proof mean less there.
As discussed in other threads there are tier one countries that do provide a high, industrialized standard of living for their people while being more efficient from a CO2 production piont of view than the US is. So there is always room for improvement. Personally, when I consider the price we pay (and not just in cash) for the 50% of our oil that the US imports I think that anything that we can do to be more efficient is worth it.
The 3rd world counties typically have a fraction of the CO2 output that the 1st world nations do so allowing them to rise while requiring decreases in tier 1 nations may not be “fair” in some eyes but it does achieve the goal. They would have to increase their output by orders of magnitude to begin to come close to us.
A developed third world that is no longer the third world is in everybody’s interest. Even if you don’t buy into the climate affects the reduction of economic refugees can’t be a bad thing either.
Kyoto is obviously not the be all and end all but it is a place to get everyone talking and since it is everyone’s atmosphere that is not a bad thing.
IIRC the first round of reductions expires in 2012 (?) so even the compliant tier 1 countries aren’t swearing away their carbon for life. These talks and treaties will go on for decades or centuries
Yeah. Probably me too. ‘Cause you know that whatever I post Vern will come in with a one liner and a smiley face.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Amen!You know Steve, I’m someone who doesn’t take a strong position on either side of this argument, but I have found the viewpoints of the “deniers” as more logical.
I find your attitude toward people who disagree to be deplorable. The “deniers” could make the same charges you have above, that you have “made up your mind” and won’t listen to the climatologists who dispute the data. If you are tired of discussing it, then stay off the threads.
I am a layperson, not a scientist. When I see conflicting data, I throw up my hands and say “how the heck do I know which scientists are correct?”I like the reasoned approach of people like Dr. Ball, who say we should do postitive things for the environment regardless, but we shouldn’t do stupid things like Kyoto.
One annoying habit of the True Believers in Global Warming is they automatically assume no one else is interested in the enviornment, or does anything to improve things.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Please tell me what the Montreal Protocol had to do with curing Keritis (“pink eye”) in sheep in Argentina?
M
MikeWM
Guest
Prevention is the best form of cure.Please tell me what the Montreal Protocol had to do with curing Keritis (“pink eye”) in sheep in Argentina?
Now, shall we discuss the issues, or play semantic games?
Mike
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Please tell me what the Montreal Protocol had to do with preventing Keritis (“pink eye”) in sheep in Argentina?
We just did – using an example where people with their hair on fire claimed an outbreak of keritis in sheep was caused by the hole in the ozone layer.
And this illustrates the issue nicely – true believers start with an idea and rake up everything they can to support it.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I’m sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to imply that “deniers” were stupid or ill informed. There just have been several very lengthy threads on this issue and it is my impression that there are many folks who really don’t care what others have to say.
I couldbe wrong but that is my impression.
It is a flaw in discussing things on a forum. I know my own mindset but it is difficult sometimes to grasp that of others when all you have are random paragraphs spread out over several days.
Yes they could. And they have.
they would of course be wrong
The flesh and the ego are weak.
I imagine it would be the same way that a layman would make decisions about medical matters. I’m sure you could find a doctor who has an alternative cure like magnets, an all-cabbage diet, or drinking your own urine. But if the consensus among doctors is take two aspirin and call me in the morning that may be the way to go.I am a layperson, not a scientist. When I see conflicting data, I throw up my hands and say “how the heck do I know which scientists are correct?”
I’m no big fan of Kyoto and since the US Senate will never ratify it come hell or high water…… well maybe high water ….the point is kind of moot. We’ll be spectators for the first round.
The material that I have read from Ball (and I will admit that it may not be representative) has all been of the type that did not seem well considered or reasoned. His notion that large numbers of scientists are intentionally misrepresenting data is kind of strange (which lead to my statement about anti-evolutionists, uncharitable perhaps and I apologize for that).
I have not read anything from Ball indicating what he proposes for the environment. What is his rationale? If the earth has been hotter and colder, has had higher and lower ocean levels, and has had more and less CO2…… what then is his guide for what is positive for the environment? Nothing would seem to matter or if it did there would be no way that humans could affect the environment…
R
rlg94086
Guest
In the response to Lance you said " I am an open minded, skeptical…" Please assume the same of those who disagree with you.I’m sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to imply that “deniers” were stupid or ill informed. There just have been several very lengthy threads on this issue and it is my impression that there are many folks who really don’t care what others have to say.
I couldbe wrong but that is my impression.
It is a flaw in discussing things on a forum. I know my own mindset but it is difficult sometimes to grasp that of others when all you have are random paragraphs spread out over several days.
Yes they could. And they have.
they would of course be wrong
The flesh and the ego are weak.
I am also a CAF addict…is there rehab for this?
My mom poured through books to help guide her on what to do about her Parkinsons and found a great surgical solution outside of the mainstream. I guess she should have just stayed with the “consensus” method of medication.
Then read more of his material. I provided the links several times, that have his and other’s full presentations on climate change and the website where they reside is the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. I even posted this list of “What defines Responsible Environmental Stewardship.” - nrsp.com/background.html#4The material that I have read from Ball (and I will admit that it may not be representative) has all been of the type that did not seem well considered or reasoned. His notion that large numbers of scientists are intentionally misrepresenting data is kind of strange (which lead to my statement about anti-evolutionists, uncharitable perhaps and I apologize for that).
I have not read anything from Ball indicating what he proposes for the environment. What is his rationale? If the earth has been hotter and colder, has had higher and lower ocean levels, and has had more and less CO2…… what then is his guide for what is positive for the environment? Nothing would seem to matter or if it did there would be no way that humans could affect the environment…
Everytime I have, your response has been “nothing I’ve seen from Dr. Ball has impressed me.” Well? Read more, because the only things you have ever cited to explain your Ball viewpoint is the claims of misrepresentation of some scientists on the other side.
J
jman507
Guest
Prevention is the best form of cure, given the preventative measures are an effective way to cure. Given a cure is needed. Given that the preventative measures are not worse than the aliment and possible interventions to lead to a cure.
I’ll present you this case, in a vaccine thread, a poster argued that she would rather her children come down with either chickenpoxs or measles (actually I think she might agree on both) than get the vaccines. The reasoning being that by getting the virus infection, the body will be able to overcome the infection. Her risk assessment lead her to believe the risks of complications was far outweighed by the benifits of having a stronger immune resonce against the virus. If the child is female, if she has children and breast feeds, the child will have a high enough number of antibodies by coming down with the illness rather than too small of number from the vaccine to get the child through the most critical time that risks high complication rates.
This is a bit of a tangent, but the point is even if there is global warming, it does not follow that interventions like the Keyoto. In my opinion what is most prudent is to do interventions with small economic costs. The more expensive the economic costs, the more we need to have more accurate and percise predictions and the intervention’s effectiveness needs to be more accurate and percise. It is not prudent to fall into expensive ineffective interventions leading to less money for measures to mitigate active emergencies.
Look at it this way, from the three little pigs. If the pig that built his house of straw might have less preventative to things of outside elements. The wolf blows the house down, but the pig had some left over money to buy a gun, that pig might not get eaten. The other pig built his house of brick, and was very preventative to outside elements. The wolf couldn’t blow the house down, but breaks a window. The pig didn’t have left over money for the gun, and was eaten. On the other hand if there was no wolf, but a big strom blows the straw house over, but not the brick. Preventions was good. What can I say, the best policy is to understand your threats as best you can, then try to figure out what the most effective interventions are for the best cost.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I’ve no idea. You implied it was linked with the hole in the ozone layer; I couldn’t be bothered looking up whether it were or not. If it isn’t, fine.
We just did – using an example where people with their hair on fire claimed an outbreak of keritis in sheep was caused by the hole in the ozone layer.
I think you’ll find I was talking about the problem of the hole in the ozone layer in general, not sheep in Argentina in particular. Whether your example had anything to do with the hole in the ozone layer, the hole in the ozone layer was a problem, and still will be a problem for some time to come, but because of proper concerted action by almost all the countries of the world, an aboslute crisis has been averted.
If this silly little exchange proves anything, it proves that just because some claims made of a problem may be exaggerated or just plain wrong, that has nothing to do with whether a problem exists, needs to be addressed, or indeed can be addressed and fixed if the will is there.
I assume you’re not denying that the hole in the ozone was a problem, even if not to sheep in Argentina, and that an international effort solved it?
Mike
S
steveandersen
Guest
I suppose I could lie and say that it impressed me if that would make you feel any better but it wouldn’t be the truth.
No, with the exception of one video lecture that I had problems downloading, I have read the stuff you asked me to. His own words not anyone else’s.
How many chances am I supposed to give the guy?
How many chances have you given his opponents?
R
rlg94086
Guest
You’ve never criticized any of his scientific evidence on this forum, only his claims that the other side has misrepresented the facts. Therefore, there was no way of knowing that you read anything else by him.
Plenty…I’ve read every citation that you and others have posted on this forum, as well as newspaper articles, etc. Am I supposed to conform my personal analysis to yours in order to make you happy?
2
2shelbys
Guest
I believe plenty of people are saying that. I have not seen any demonstrable scientific evidence to back it up.
Actually, he cites the study conducted under the leadership of Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany which you can look up if you choose to. It also quotes several scientists who have reviewed the work and found it to be valid.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, the viewers-with-alarm said it was due to the hole in the ozone layer. And you said the Montreal Protocol fixed the problem.
But the problem was keritis, “pinkeye,” a common disease of ruminants.
And millions of formerly sore-eyed sheep appreciate it.
Right! Just set your hair on fire and jump off the cliff – no need to check facts.
It was a problem right up there with Spontanious Human Combustion and Crop Circles.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Ah, the infamous tipping point. Taking into account the fact that it has been well documented that the earth has been FAR hotter in the past I would have to believe that any thus far ficticious “tipping point” is far beyond where the earth will be at any time in the foreseeable future, especially after the current warming trend has ended as expected by 2018.
I justify it by the simple fact that the people you choose to believe have absolutely no demonstrable evidence to back their claims. The best evidence they present is based on computer models that ignore the earth’s well-established warming and cooling trends and make other assumptions. Heck, even the IPCC you love to quote so much can not figure out to what degree human activity is involved. They keep chainging their mind on that and always in the direction of reducing the importance of human involvement.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Your meters need servicing. This side of the story has not appeared in any major U.S. newspaper or in any reporting of the major media. If you had even looked at the article you would have seen it is from a U.K. source.Look at the first post in this thread, it laments
“Why don’t we hear this side of the story here in the U.S.?”
As if there is some sort of conspiracy of silence when the writer is clearly in the US and has obviously heard it.
I know that my irony meters were ticking.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Now this is a good post and an excellent synopsis of the Kyoto Protocol.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The critical “tipping point” is mental. Once a True Believer passes it, he can never get back.
2
2shelbys
Guest
And while you are at it try to explain a couple more things…Vern said:
And Mike said
Please tell me how "We came together and solved the problem?’
Why was the ozone only thin over areas of little or no industrial activity?
Why was it thinnest over Antarctica?
Why do all of the animals indigenous to Antarctica have skin that has adapted to resist the far stronger solar radiation in the region due to the thinner atmosphere?
Do you think that adaptation occurred over the past few decades?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Untrue
The only material I have read about Ball is either by his own hand or the brief that his lawyer filed in his libel suit.
In one of these lengthy and numerous and circular and repetitive threads I responded point by point to one of his articles (I’ll have to go search for it)
Some statements I agreed with and said so while other statements were… not quite correct
IIRC other than a quip that they “were not impressed” no one responded point by point to me.
In Fact I don’t think anyone has responded point by point to most of what I have posted although I try to do that to others.
shrug
- Status