I thought of another parallel:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is a movement that undoubtedly has many ACGW believers among its ranks.  The movement’s website says, “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”

Compare this to the fundamentalists (who undoubtedly have many creationist believers among their ranks) who want to bring about the Apocalypse ending human life on Earth.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the extremes in both radical fundamentalists and radical environmentalists are anthropogenic self-loathers.  Put simply, for whatever reasons, they hate themselves, and, by extension, all human beings and feel humans have no right to be on this Earth.

And of course, what good is a “healthy earth” to humans if we are not here enjoy it? What seems to go unnoticed or unmentioned is the fact that we humans are also part of nature. So while the entire “man-made” argument tries to once again project guilt on humans, we are just as much a product of nature as every other thing is on this planet. And just like the fundamentalists, man is portrayed as inherently evil. And if we do nothing about global warming and if everything comes to pass as the doomsayers claim, they’ll get just what they want anyway - the extinction of the human race. Crisis solved!

The earth doesn’t know we are here and it doesn’t care. The earth continues to change with continents drifting, new land rising from volcanic activity, shorelines receding and growing, along with many other geological, meteorological, chemical, and physical changes. Just because we may live along a shoreline, “nature” isn’t going to stop changing the lay of the land and seas on our account. Just because we may build a city on a faultline, doesn’t mean that the earth will comply and not cause an earthquake. As we can’t seem to be able to predict the weather in a 5- or 7-day forecast with any level of accuracy, I’m not going to place any faith in a prediction of what our climate will be like in 10, 20 or 100 years from now based upon even less data than what is used to predict the weather.

Another point to consider is what the proponents of the impending catastrophe say we ought to do about it, and whether that will be effective in preventing the posited catastrophe.

Some of what is suggested is good whether you believe the predictions of doom or not.  For example, it would be good to switch to non-polluting fuels and means of generating energy.  I tend to think that many environmentalists and geostrategists are perfectly willing to exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe in order to “motivate” people to do as they want them to.

I would not be surprised if this supposed impending apocalypse will be used with ever greater aggression in international politics fighting over trade and resources, or even as a pretext for military interventions.

Here’s an example: China’s Dust Storms Raise Fears of Impending Catastrophe

The result was not military action, but it was a source of high-level complaints and much muttering about whether China can be trusted - ecologically.

rsonin - 05 August 2007 03:13 AM

For example, it would be good to switch to non-polluting fuels and means of generating energy.

Agreed.  And there is one form of generating energy that is non-polluting, relatively cheap, dependable and can provide for nearly all of our energy needs for a long time.  But it is feared by the scientific illiterate public more than global warming: Nuclear energy.  The word “nuclear” alone conjures up images of giant mutated reptiles from B-movies - which is where most people get most of their science “education” not to mention everything they know about nuclear power. 

“In more than 500 reactor years of service in the United States, there has never been a death or a serious injury to plant employees or to the public caused by a commercial reactor accident or radiation exposure.”

“Nuclear power is the safest major technology ever introduced into the United States.”
—Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences

Source.

rsonin - 05 August 2007 03:13 AM

I tend to think that many environmentalists and geostrategists are perfectly willing to exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe in order to “motivate” people to do as they want them to.

And the exaggerations (not to mention misconceptions and outright lies) told about nuclear power are some of the most silly and prejudiced toward a power generating method in the history of the world.  That unfounded fear has kept us from advancing our energy producing methods and needs for nearly 3 decades.

Nuclear fission reactors are about the cleanest alternative we have so far and are carbon neutral.  Nuclear fuels are unlikely to run out for some time to come at current usage.  However, they are not non-polluting.  The lowest level waste is run off into the sea and the slightly higher level waste is encased in glass and buried in lead lined chambers for thousands of years.

The French are experimenting with a Nuclear fusion reactor.  If this can be used safely and controlled, it will be a much better bet in terms of generating a lot of energy with virtually no radioactive waste and certainly nothing with a long half life.  The downsides of course are (if they are using the known techniques) that you have to have a torus magnetic field around it to contain it and this requires electrical energy and you also have to produce a large tonnage of heavy tater which then has to be made into a plasma.  This last also requires energy input in both the manufacturing and the production of a plasma.  However, it has a lot of bang for the buck if it works.  It will require much more highly qualified staff to man it than the fission reactors because it will involve enormously complex technology to keep it working safely and keep the process stable.

narwhol - 05 August 2007 02:11 PM

...you also have to produce a large tonnage of heavy tater which then has to be made into a plasma.  This last also requires energy input in both the manufacturing and the production of a plasma.  However, it has a lot of bang for the buck if it works.

Sounds like a win-win to me. If it doesn’t work, we’ll just convert the heavy “tater” to french fries. 

George

You’ve caught me - this should read “heavy water”.  The T isn’t even near the W on my keyboard so how the hell did this happen?  I’m such a muppet sometimes.

narwhol - 05 August 2007 03:04 PM

You’ve caught me - this should read “heavy water”.  The T isn’t even near the W on my keyboard so how the hell did this happen?  I’m such a muppet sometimes.

I normally ignore typos, but this was just too delicious to pass up. 

All in good fun, of course.

George

narwhol - 05 August 2007 03:04 PM

You’ve caught me - this should read “heavy water”.  The T isn’t even near the W on my keyboard so how the hell did this happen?  I’m such a muppet sometimes.

I’d say it was Freudian, and that you were hungry, but I rather doubt that ‘tater’ is common usage other than in parts of the U.S. south.

Occam

They sometimes use that word in Enlgand, but they’re more commonly called spuds.  They call them tatties in Scotland though.

Please allow me to compliment Rocinante on his June, 2007 posting.  It’s scope reveals a truly scholarly person and it is perfect for this group!  I heartily agree with your interpretation of the history of human thought as regards homo-centricity.

UH HUH!

One of the world’s leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.

The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls “slow feedback” mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

ROFL

psik

You have opened up another chapter in the overall problem associated with climate science.  The “slow feedback” concept is very speculative and has been grouped with the other highly questionable assumptions used in writing computer models.  The use of computer models is a very large part of the problem.  The models must be written so as to reproduce existing data; this step will also include some assumptions such as the effect of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere or the ground.  Then critical assumptions must be made in order to predict the future.  That’s where everything goes wrong.  The models used up to now always predict exactly what the author wants it to.  Not good science…

The reflectivity of snow is a perfectly reasonable assumption.  But what happened to the Gulf Stream argument?  New data clarified that the nature of the flow of that current was not understood at all in the past and is not going to be rerouted by fresh water streaming in from Greenland.

Let’s get right at the most egregious assumption: that CO2 is the primary culprit in warming the globe.  There are only a few parts per MILLION of CO2 in the air.  There is no information on the global distribution of that CO2; local measurements from a relatively small number of sites is expanded using assumptions.  Is it primarily close to the ground?  Is it mostly in one of the higher strata of the atmosphere?  Does it quickly distribute itself uniformly throughout the entire atmosphere?  How fast does it move away from population centers?  I could go on and on and on.

There’s more.  There just isn’t any way that a few parts per million of CO2 could be so powerful.  It only absorbs a fairly narrow frequency band so there isn’t a lot of energy for it to get compared with the total incident radiation from the sun.  Measurements are confirming that more CO2 will not increase the temperature of the globe appreciably.  The level of diminishing returns has been passed.

Water vapor vastly outperforms CO2 anyway.  Clouds and water vapor are far more important to study.

I hope that I have briefly illustrated how much science there is to do and how much has already been done.  The most salient point is that global warming is probably over.  Sun spot activity has dropped off, as it should according to the regular cycles of sun activity.  We are starting a cooling phase.  By next year I will be surprised if anyone remembers the global warming fear any more than they remember the original reason that the IPCC was formed: the fear of a new ice age starting in the ‘70’s.  Yes, that is why the IPCC was formed.  They are having a tough time justifying their existence.  Personally, I would cut all their funding immediately.

You have opened up another chapter in the overall problem associated with climate science.  The “slow feedback” concept is very speculative and has been grouped with the other highly questionable assumptions used in writing computer models.  The use of computer models is a very large part of the problem.

Article says not based on models.

He argues the cut is needed if “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed”. A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth’s history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

There is no information on the global distribution of that CO2; local measurements from a relatively small number of sites is expanded using assumptions.  Is it primarily close to the ground?  Is it mostly in one of the higher strata of the atmosphere?  Does it quickly distribute itself uniformly throughout the entire atmosphere?  How fast does it move away from population centers?  I could go on and on and on.

Don’t waste your time.  Considering what is known about the behavior of gases and meteorology after all of these decades and where the Keeling Curve is measured, those questions just make you appear silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7120770.stm

psik