2 of 5
2
Parallels Between Creationists and Global Warming Proponents
Posted: 21 June 2007 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

ACGW is from the first post above - “C” is “Catastrophic”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2007 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19

Thank you grin, now I see why you said this is the weakest link

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2007 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

Here is something interesting about the whole global warming discussion.

Former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to examine some of the 1,221 weather stations that gather the data used to come up with the temperature models used in the global warming discussion.
 
These temperature-measuring stations have standard rules as to where they can and cannot be located, such as not being allowed on concrete, required to be located at least 100 feet from buildings, etc. and other location rules that help insure they are accurately measuring the true ambient temperature.
 
Now get this!  At least one of these measuring stations was located next to trash burning barrels!  Some are sitting in front of air-conditioning vents!  Others were on or near parking lots and airports, including one near the runway area where it was regularly hit with jet exhaust!

He has pictures of some of the location violations of these surface stations at the site:  http://www.surfacestations.org and at his blog here. 

Is it possible that these location violations are giving us inaccurate information?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2007 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

Sure, it’s possible. But we’d need to have something like a thorough analysis of these locations, not just an anecdote, before we decide.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 03:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

A few outliers will not affect the outcome very much.  If you measured the temperature of 1200 human beings it would not matter much to the final result if a few of them had the flu or had just gone for a jog.

In any case there are plenty of other means of measuring global temperatures, like satellite measurements, that do not depend on these thermometers.  Satellite measurements have come online just as the problems mentioned with these locations have become relevant.  There are also proxy methods that do not produce accurate temperatures but probable ranges.

Anyway, all methods appear to show that there is a definite rise in global temperature over the last hundred years or so, though it is not the huge change that some people want to believe exists, or as anomalous either.

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, the claims of impending doom and the narrative behind its cause resonate with people for all the wrong reasons (irrational reasons).  I think some of these fears are very similar to religious ideas of the end of the world, big floods, God punishing immoral people - the patterns of thought are very similar.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
rsonin - 23 June 2007 03:17 AM

Anyway, all methods appear to show that there is a definite rise in global temperature over the last hundred years or so, though it is not the huge change that some people want to believe exists, or as anomalous either.

Yes, the climate is getting warmer.  The Earth is still coming out of one of the so-called “Little Ice Ages” after all.  And I for one would rather deal with more warmth than more ice and cold! smile  In all seriousness, only human conceit would make a person think that a stable climate tailor-made for human beings is how things are “supposed to be.” 

But the results of this slow (by human timescales) warming will, in my opinion, be difficult if not impossible to predict.  Yes, it could be bad.  But humans have adapted since there have been humans.  Our ancestors survived the above mentioned ice age and harsher ones than that!  But an overall warming could also provide more fertile area for farming and other natural plants and crops to grow.  The increased photosynthesis of these new plants could then affect the climate in unknown ways – good, bad or indifferent.  The sheer number of possible “butterfly effect” outcomes makes it too complex for humans to categorically and emphatically predict that, “X will automatically lead to Y.”  It would be similar to evolutionary biologists saying, “Since evolution is a fact, then that means that by X number of years, the Y animal will have Z features.”  Nature is not always that simple.  We just don’t know, in my humble opinion. 

rsonin - 23 June 2007 03:17 AM

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, the claims of impending doom and the narrative behind its cause resonate with people for all the wrong reasons (irrational reasons).  I think some of these fears are very similar to religious ideas of the end of the world, big floods, God punishing immoral people - the patterns of thought are very similar.

This makes me wonder if there is some underlying psychological reason for people to believe such things.  We are all humans, and as such, we pretty much operate in similar manners when it comes to belief systems.

[ Edited: 23 June 2007 11:48 AM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I refer you all to the research that clearly demonstrates (by showing correlation) a causal link with average temperature.
pchart1.jpg

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2007 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

I have been concerned about this for some time.  I remember watching James Burke’s After the Warming around 1990.  But I was about ready to panic after watching this:

Global Dimming - BBC Horizon 2005
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382

I also have a slightly different perspective on this.  When was the last time you heard climatologists talking about unnecessary pollution produced because of planned obsolescence?  Look at the planes used in WWII that flew 400+ mph.  Why are we redesigning cars that roll along the ground at less than 130 mph?  How much extra pollution is caused by stupid consumerism?

Another factor in the issue relating to economics is that our economists don’t talk about how much we lose on depreciation of that junk.  230,000,000 cars in the US alone and the economists do not compute or tell us the loss on DEPRECIATION.  In fact the economics books define it out of existence.  For economists depreciation only applies to CAPITAL GOODS.  But when we buy more of the junk they add it to GDP and call it Economic Growth.

Transcript
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
The Denial Machine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811

http://www.freethoughtforum.org/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=503

Personally I don’t understand how anyone can stand next to a 8 lane highway during rush hour and imagine all of the similar places across the US and not think this can affect the atmosphere over decades and that doesn’t even take into account all of the factories and coal plants.  The trouble is we can’t be sure it won’t be catastrophic and the planet has no emergency exits.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8453442377878175440

psikey

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

With our ever growing population, and more of that population desiring and achieving the lifestyle we enjoy in the US, we can expect this debate and many other ecological impact debates to continue.

I don’t need scientific consensus to hold myself and the rest of the human population responsible for the impact we have on the environment.  Arguing over the extent of the damage we are responsible for vs. nature itself, is a distraction from the fact that we do bear some responsibility.

Is the alternate argument that we should do nothing?  That nature has a way of self-correcting?  Would we be satisfied with the results if we just let nature (and our own lifestyles) run their course?

It seems that the population will continue to grow, more will join the ranks of old-sun resource consumers, and waste producers.  We have chosen a lifestyle that accepts disposable this and that as the norm.  Most of us have no alternative to living on the grid, and using a fossil fuel powered vehicle.

If we choose not to change our habits, we will provide the example for Third World countries who covet our lifestyle. 

Sustainability, not Global Warming should be our focus.  Arguing over our contribution to Global Warming does not confront the issues we have in building a sustainable lifestyle for generations to come.  I grow weary of this argument and eager to confront the issue of Sustainability.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Charles - 06 July 2007 04:32 PM

Sustainability, not Global Warming should be our focus.  Arguing over our contribution to Global Warming does not confront the issues we have in building a sustainable lifestyle for generations to come.  I grow weary of this argument and eager to confront the issue of Sustainability.

Well I don’t think you can talk about sustainability without talking about planned obsolescence.

And this lifestyle that everybody is supposed to covet, being brainwashed via TV to buy junk the marketing people don’t even understand.  LOL

I’ve gotta have a silver iPhone with black racing stripes to match my car.ROFL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

Exactly, we scarcely understand one technology before we abandon it for the next hyped up generation.

That is one of many issues we could focus on in the area of sustainability.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

The trouble is we can’t be sure it won’t be catastrophic and the planet has no emergency exits.

We can’t be sure that it will be catastrophic.  That is what makes a good part of the hoopla (not all - but a good part of it) a sham.  We are presented with worst-case scenarios, with Boston underwater (the usual imagery shows Manhattan being swamped by a tidal wave a hundred feet high - total nonsense), with global crop failures and no more fish in the ocean and blah, blah, blah.  None of these catastrophic predictions are based in anything but fear-mongering.

On the other hand, there are huge lobbies to tell us that deregulation is the best thing since indoor plumbing (it is not - it is a real catastrophe, and not one in the future), we have pig farms dumping millions of gallons of excrement into rivers, power plants belching out pollutants that have catastrophic effects now, not in fifty or a hundred years, more varieties of toxic waste than there are of end products, and so on.  All these things are problems now.  But it is easier to get people to worry about the end of the world in fifty years than it is to get them to worry about what they do today that makes life more dangerous, that increases incidences of diseases - that create conditions where people starve amid food and their fields wither because of politics and they can’t get simple, cheap medication because of institutionalized poverty, which itself produces ecological disasters because the poor can’t afford to prevent them.

Maybe in 100 years, the seas will have risen by a foot, or two feet, or five feet.  In the meantime, how many public water supplies in the third world are filthy now, and likely to be filthier when they are privatized?  How many people suffer now because of things much more easily changed than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?  How many ecological disasters are happening now that don’t have anything to do with cute fuzzy animals, or whales, or the lovely forests of nature shows?

All this global warming hysteria is a nice way to get people thinking that they’re saving the planet by reducing their carbon footprint or some such catch phrase, when nearly everything they do and avoid doing (most of which they hardly know about) actually contributes to the misery and deaths of millions upon millions of people who can be helped now.

A case study: There is a water plant in India that is state of the art, and produces enough clean drinking water for a city (I think this was in Delhi).  But, like all water delivery systems, the delivery pipes are old and leaky.  The city is too poor to afford to keep the pumps going 24 hours a day, and when the pumps are off, the pressure differential reverses and raw sewage leaking from the sewage system is forced into the clean drinking water.  So, poverty - and not much of a deficit - causes a clean water supply to become dirty, and a huge portion of the population to be constantly sick, thereby affecting life directly and harmfully.  The solution?  Certainly not funding more pumping.  Certainly not funding the replacement of leaky pipes.  The solution is to give the end users filters to clean the water - filters that need replacing.  That is the kind of sustainability that the IMF and IBRD and UN foster.

Anyways, sorry for the rant, but when I hear anyone going on about the impending ecological apocalypse, I wonder how many people had to die today because they don’t have clean water, or even basic health care and medications, or proper food, or a veto at the UN.  Priorities seem skewed.  It’s like a man whose house is on fire worrying about a crack in the foundation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 06:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01
rsonin - 06 July 2007 06:21 PM

The trouble is we can’t be sure it won’t be catastrophic and the planet has no emergency exits.

Anyways, sorry for the rant, but when I hear anyone going on about the impending ecological apocalypse, I wonder how many people had to die today because they don’t have clean water, or even basic health care and medications, or proper food, or a veto at the UN.  Priorities seem skewed.  It’s like a man whose house is on fire worrying about a crack in the foundation.

The argument is confounding on so many levels.  While having a break from work and a snack just now, I heard some guy on Tucker Carlson’s show (a GW opponent), argue that the whole GW movement is actually a cover for wealth distribution.  His take is that it is a scare tactic used to make the US poorer and nations like China richer.

I think there are well meaning people on both sides of the debate.  But I think the framing of the debate is misplaced.  Like you suggest, we have failed to recognize the source of the problems we face.  We have a growing population, resources on this planet will be the same regardless of how many of us there are.  How we make use of them, how we care for them, will make the difference in our long term survival.

Right in front of us, the symptoms of our failure to confront these issues are causing people to die unnecessarily.  We own that problem, but have failed to accept responsibility.  Not all problems can be solved for a profit, but who profits from our demise?

Are people nuts or what?

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 10:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 06 July 2007 06:21 PM

Anyways, sorry for the rant, but when I hear anyone going on about the impending ecological apocalypse, I wonder how many people had to die today because they don’t have clean water, or even basic health care and medications, or proper food, or a veto at the UN.  Priorities seem skewed.  It’s like a man whose house is on fire worrying about a crack in the foundation.

I provided a link to the Global Dimming video.  It’s up to you whether or not to watch it if you have time.

According to that it is likely this global dimming affected monsoons in Africa in the 80’s and is already responsible for a million deaths.  But this wasn’t figured out until 2002.

I kind of understand your perspective in that the way most people think seems strange to me.  I understood planned obsolescence was going on in cars when I was in grammar school.  I have never owned a new car and haven’t been to an auto show since 1965.  People that can get excited about cars but can’t tell me what a cam shaft is seem totally insane.

That’s life on the stupid planet.  I figured the crap would really hit the fan after I was dead but the Global Dimming video was really surprising.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 07:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

The global dimming video was exactly the kind of millenial doom and gloom crap that I was talking about above.  The end of the world is nigh!  Repent, sinners - or, polluters!  The day of judgment is upon us!  Cut to pictures of the end of the world - Biblical stuff, like, ohhhh… a flood.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2