To those who say 100% agree w/MMGW. I don't think so

[po18guy]

Mark Levin claims to broadcast his radio show from a bunker. Maybe I should move in with him.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I gotta agree with this link, which is pretty rare. I’m really surprised there are so many skeptical replies. I definitely hope they just understood the article differently that I did, because, given all the references to population, it sounded to me like he was alluding to the overpopulation argument for abortion. In which case, he is almost indisputably correct: even if popoulation is making the temperature rise, do you kill people- billions of them, as it woulod take to make any significant difference- to make the earth a more comfortable place to live? And besides, if the human body can do that much damage to the earth, think of how much reparation human technology could do. If MMGW was really a problem, we could far overpower it with our technology.

PS: LeafByNiggle, whose side are you on? You seem to have completely switched.

I have no idea what you mean. As for the article in question, I stand by my first posting in this thread.

 

[weller2]

You question a lot and disprove nothing. #6 is rather humorous but just goes to show that li(e)berals go by how they feel and not by the facts.

Well, ridiculing “demise of cuddly and tasty things in favor of biting and venomous things due to AGW” just demonstrates lack of biological knowledge.

What makes animals cuddly? Fur. Which animals need dense fur? Those which live in cold climate. Warmer climate → less cuddly things. Then, observe that there are much more venomous animals in Amazon then there are in Canada (I’ll let you figure out why) – so logically, warmer climate → more venomous things.

Now, tasty things. For example, fish are tasty. Which waters have the most fish? Those which have a lot of oxygen. What waters are oxygen-rich? Cold waters. (Google “dissolved oxygen vs temperature”) So again, warmer climate → warmer water → less oxygen in water → less fish.

 

[weller2]

CO2 isn’t even a pollutant. It’s something we exhale. It helps make plants grow,which is why it is called a greenhouse gas. And it makes up less than 1 per cent of the atmosphere. Scientists who believe in man-made global warming or climate change do not not make logical causal connections,but only exaggerated mechanistic connections,between CO2 emissions and the weather.

In other words, the same scientists who can routinely detect 1 particle of CO2 in 1 million particles of gas do not understand basic physical properties of CO2.

That seems unlikely.

 

[weller2]

I remind here that a best selling climate book in 1970 was “The Coming Ice Age”

So, here is an eminently qualified scientist who predicts an ice age beginning in 2022. That’s only NINE years from now. Google “Coming Ice Age” and just look at all the hits.

What the heck are we supoosed to believe?

How about that:

Millankovic cycles (orbital changes) would dictate that the next ice age is imminent – however, we have pumped so much CO2 in the air that we have stopped the cooling – and we have even created warming instead!

IMHO, you are just uncomfortable with the idea that humans can control climate – because you believe that it’s God’s exclusive jurisdiction.

 

[po18guy]

How about that:

Millankovic cycles (orbital changes) would dictate that the next ice age is imminent – however, we have pumped so much CO2 in the air that we have stopped the cooling – and we have even created warming instead!

IMHO, you are just uncomfortable with the idea that humans can control climate – because you believe that it’s God’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Do you actually believe that, as expansive as the earth is, the innumerable cubic kilometers of every atmospheric gas there are, that humans can seriously affect, even control the climate? Really?

If so, what are you doing to cap the volcanoes that emit tremendous, immeasurable amounts of greenhouse gases? I mean, this cannot be disregarded.

Sorry if this obviously offends, but MMGGWWMMGGWW or whatever it is called, all sounds like an environmental Tower of Babel - man attempting to inflate his importance to the level of God.

Neither am I a despoiler of the earth. I am called to be a good steward of all that is under my control. I just do not seek to control you.

 

[weller2]

if popoulation is making the temperature rise, do you kill people

Well, that was how the problem was understood back in 1970s.

Fortunately, we have advanced a bit since then and current understanding is that the what actually counts is something called ecological footprint – in short, it’s a metric which describes how much damage to the ecosystem one person does. So large population can be actually accommodated, provided that it’s “way of life” is adjusted to minimize damage to the ecosystem.

Therefore, the conflict about global warming is actually the conflict about preserving the American way of life. This image should explain it:

http://nelsonelson.com/wiki/images/2/24/Sustainable-Human-Development.png

how much reparation human technology could do. If MMGW was really a problem, we could far overpower it with our technology.

Well, we could, but every technology which has the potential to solve or mitigate the AGW problem is being protested against:

• Nuclear power → No, radiation is scary! (But the fact that a coal-fired power plant releases more radiation into the environment then a nuke plant is conveniently overlooked)
• Renewables → No, uneconomic! Carbon is cheaper! (Sure it is, because carbon-based economy dumps its main waste product, i.e. CO2, into the air without paying for it.)
• GMO-based foods → No, Frankestein! (Ignoring the fact that plants and animals we use for food are already genetically engineered, just using techniquest available 10,000 years ago)
• Geoengineering ->No, idiots, you’ll trigger ice age! (And you’ll trigger runaway warming.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you actually believe that, as expansive as the earth is, the innumerable cubic kilometers of every atmospheric gas there are, that humans can seriously affect, even control the climate? Really?

I’m not sure what your argument is here. It sounds like you are making an appeal to intuition - “the atmosphere seems soooooooooo vast…”. If that is so, then realize that human intuition is not very good at judging things beyond their day-to-day experience. Scientists do not work this way. They put numbers to every possible measurement (how vast is the atmosphere?). Only by setting intuition aside and trusting objective measurements can we develop truly trustworthy science.

If so, what are you doing to cap the volcanoes that emit tremendous, immeasurable amounts of greenhouse gases? I mean, this cannot be disregarded.

How tremendous? Immeasurable? Hardly. This sort of thing is measured all the time. Wouldn’t it make sense to try to quantify the contribution from volcanoes, if that is your point, so it can be compared with what is generated by human activity?

 

[triumphguy]

Do you actually believe that, as expansive as the earth is, the innumerable cubic kilometers of every atmospheric gas there are, that humans can seriously affect, even control the climate? Really?

If so, what are you doing to cap the volcanoes that emit tremendous, immeasurable amounts of greenhouse gases? I mean, this cannot be disregarded.

Sorry if this obviously offends, but MMGGWWMMGGWW or whatever it is called, all sounds like an environmental Tower of Babel - man attempting to inflate his importance to the level of God.

Neither am I a despoiler of the earth. I am called to be a good steward of all that is under my control. I just do not seek to control you.

Volcanoes gives off about 1% of the amount of CO2 that industry does.

volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

 

[TARRAT]

CO2 isn’t even a pollutant. It’s something we exhale. It helps make plants grow,which is why it is called a greenhouse gas. And it makes up less than 1 per cent of the atmosphere. Scientists who believe in man-made global warming or climate change do not not make logical causal connections,but only exaggerated mechanistic connections,between CO2 emissions and the weather.

Liberals are not confused by logic. Please don’t go there.

 

[weller2]

Do you actually believe that, as expansive as the earth is, the innumerable cubic kilometers of every atmospheric gas there are, that humans can seriously affect, even control the climate? Really?

Yes.

This fact – that humans can cause large, or even catastrophic changes to Earth’s climate – has been known since early 1980s, when the (in)famous TTAPS study attempted to predict climate conseuences of a nuclear war and found that it would trigger major climate cooling, dubbed “nuclear winter”. In US, the publication has been followed with a wave of media attacks denying credibility to the study. The whole circus was not unlike the present debate about AGW. To quote a fascinating paper on the subject from 1988:

The critics of nuclear winter, lacking the same degree of scientific credibility, have somewhat different options. Those critics with status as scientists mostly prefer to argue on scientific grounds, focussing on uncertainties and methodological shortcomings in nuclear winter research. This is a form of loyal opposition, since the key distinction between science and politics is not. challenged (though some complaints about the public promotion of nuclear winter can be heard from this group[135-136]). A few other critics, notably Russell Seitz[137-138], while not. neglecting scientific criticisms, have directly argued that political agendas lie behind nuclear winter research. If such claims are given any public circulation, they are very threatening to nuclear winter researchers, who have counterattacked by disparaging the quality of Seitz’s evidence and credentials. Scientist critics of nuclear winter have not leapt to Seitz’s defence.

bmartin.cc/pubs/88spp.html

Sounds familiar?

There was a twist, though. The Russians have made their own, classified, studies and their results agreed with TTAPS – in fact, Mikhail Gorbachev has essentially admitted that the Russian results have scared him into embracing policy of disarmament ( salon.com/2000/09/07/gorbachev/ )

If so, what are you doing to cap the volcanoes that emit tremendous, immeasurable amounts of greenhouse gases? I mean, this cannot be disregarded.

Why do you assume that volcanic emissions are immeasurable? They are very much measurable. Anyway, here’s a fun fact. The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 has actually reduced CO2 emissions, because all air traffic in Europe has been grounded for two weeks:



And then we have this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_Volcano.gif

Volcanos? What volcanos?

Sorry if this obviously offends, but MMGGWWMMGGWW or whatever it is called, all sounds like an environmental Tower of Babel - man attempting to inflate his importance to the level of God.

We’ve built our Tower of Babel already. It was made of water, its height was 17 kilometers. It was built on November 1, 1952 at Enewetak Atol. And it looked like that:



That day, mankind has mastered releasing energies on a scale which could cause planetary destruction. There’s no physical, or even technological, upper limit to the yield of a thermonuclear weapon; it’s just a question of the amount of fuel and number of stages.

If mankind is capable of destroying a planet, why would it be unable to control climate?

 

[SentinelofTruth]

weller2:

In other words, the same scientists who can routinely detect 1 particle of CO2 in 1 million particles of gas do not understand basic physical properties of CO2.

Are you one of those scientists? No, you are not. If you were, you would understand what a tiny effect CO2 has.
And in the image you gave in your last post, is that supposed to be the US’s atomic bombings in WW2? Cause that wasn’t in 1952.

 

[triumphguy]

Are you one of those scientists? No, you are not. If you were, you would understand what a tiny effect CO2 has.
And in the image you gave in your last post, is that supposed to be the US’s atomic bombings in WW2? Cause that wasn’t in 1952.

I’m sure he knows that - that’s the first hydrogen bomb.

 

[po18guy]

Volcanoes gives off about 1% of the amount of CO2 that industry does.

volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

I was speaking of all greenhouse gases, actually.

 

[po18guy]

Yes.

Nice use of bandwidth! What is your ultimate goal?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nice use of bandwidth! What is your ultimate goal?

Interesting. Someone who has made 21,489 postings is criticizing someone who has made 98 posting for using too much bandwidth?

 

[weller2]

And in the image you gave in your last post, is that supposed to be the US’s atomic bombings in WW2? Cause that wasn’t in 1952.

That’s Ivy Mike test – 1000x the energy of Hiroshima.

Nice use of bandwidth! What is your ultimate goal?

Let’s see. You have made two assertions:

(1) humans are too small to cause changes in climate.

This is demonstrably false, because mankind has learned to release practically unlimited amounts of energy by mastering hydrogen bombs. In fact, the idea that humans can catastrophically affect climate has first entered public discourse in 1980s in context of nuclear weapons – with very serious political implications. If you had actually studied the history of the global warming science (or, as you prefer, the history of the global warming conspiracy) you would have known this.

(2) that human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to volcanic CO2 emissions.

This is again demonstrably false, because (a) CO2 measurements do not show any correlation to volcanic eruptions (graph above), (b) volcanic CO2 emissions are actually measurable, and human CO2 production can be easily calculated from data on the production of fossil fuels – and human emissions are larger. In fact, a major volcanic eruption produces less CO2 per day then air traffic on one continent.

I was speaking of all greenhouse gases, actually.

And these other greenhouse gases produced by volcanos are…?

And by the way, erupting volcanos also pump dust and sulphur dioxide in the air – which cause cooling. Volcanic eruption in 1815 reduced global average temperature by 1 degree for one year, causing widespread famine: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

[anthony022071]

In other words, the same scientists who can routinely detect 1 particle of CO2 in 1 million particles of gas do not understand basic physical properties of CO2.

That seems unlikely.

I didn’t say that. Scientific knowledge does not guarantee the ability to make logical causal connections.

 

[on_the_hill]

Consider that:

1. The article was published as an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune. Pittsburgh, being in the heart of coal country has a vested interest in refuting global warming.
2. The author of the article, William M. Briggs, is a highly-opinionated statistics consultant, who only got his masters degree after going quite public with his opinions. He is not a working scientist in the field. Just Google his name and “climate” and you will find plenty of refutations of his “expertise”.
3. He cites the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” which sounds official, but is just a special-interest group pushing their own agenda. It has no scientific standing. They picked a name to rival the IPCC. They are an arm of the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian think tank. Hardly the kind of place to go for unbiased scientific work.
4. Mr. Briggs say the NIPCC has cited 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles that contradict the IPCC’s claims. They may have cited 5,000 articles, but without seeing them, one has to take their word for it that they contradict the IPCC’s claims. It is more likely that it requires misunderstanding of the IPCC’s claims to come to that conclusion.
5. The article says Mr. Briggs has a masters degree in climate science from an “Ivy League university”. First, isn’t a little strange that they did not name the university? And second, what has he done in the field since getting his degree? Has he worked as a scientist? Done original research? Or did he get the degree just so he could make his pre-conceived notions in his blog and opinion pieces sound more authoritative?
6. Most of Mr. Briggs appeals are to the emotions rather than to the facts. For instance he humorously observes that global warming seems to be a threat to all the “cuddly, cute, delicious or photogenic” species, while favoring the species that " stings, bites, pricks or stinks". This is no way to do science.

1. The Tribune Review is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire whose checkbook supports a number of conservative organizations.