Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming » Global Warming

Global Warming

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming

jaminb
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: London UK
Total Topics: 102
Total Posts: 359

Posted 04/16/04 - 02:50 AM:	#1
www.john-daly.com I was referred to the above site by a professional philosopher who denies global warming. I personally find it quite credible in terms of data, though a little obsessive. My AS level in biology though, means that I am not an expert on the issues. I would greatly appreciate the thoughts of any more advanced scientists, although I certainly feel the evidence must be stacked against him. Do you think it's happening, is it as grave a problem as has been made out, is it definately human induced and what can be done about it?
_____________________ It's not "natural", "normal" or "kind", the flesh you so fancifully fry, the meat in your mouth, as you savour the flavour Of MURDER

amicus_curiae
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 349

Posted 11/04/06 - 04:17 AM:	#2
Environmental science isn't my thing but I have the intelligence to realise that things are bad. In fact, very bad. Before we started having a profound effect on the environment with the heralding of the Industrial Era the world was in a nice equilibrium but now look at what we're doing. We're asking a cat to pull the mule's plough. Well for starters all those lazy bastards (pardon me french) can take their fingers out their arses and actually realise that they're pre-murdering every man, woman and child that will live in 100-200 years time. If they actually realised that then we'd be moving-slowly-but moving. If the American government would perhaps have a little compassion for their fellow Earthians then we'd get somewhere, if we'd all do our bit then it could be slowed. Derek.
_____________________ Sapere Aude! 'Have the courage to use your own reason'

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2391

Posted 11/04/06 - 04:30 AM:	#3
"By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours chew and eat our fill." - CEO Nwabudike Morgan Seriously, if you want to preserve the environment, do it with your own money and not others'.
_____________________ Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 11/04/06 - 05:25 AM:	#4
Frankly, there are only two ways to describe global warming deniers: cranks and professional liars. If you really want the opinion of respected scientists, you would go by the study in Nature that failed to find a single scientific paper in a scientific journal that opposed global warming.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4216

Posted 11/04/06 - 08:00 AM:	#5
jaminb wrote: Do you think it's happening, is it as grave a problem as has been made out, is it definately human induced and what can be done about it? It is certainly happening, there are conflicting estimates of how grave it is but it is likely to be grave, no one knows for sure whether it is definitely human induced and there's almost nothing that can be done about it. That would be a good one-liner answer that reflects the consensus. I'm working on a project related to that (estimate of greenhouse emissions from large reservoirs), so if you have further questions, be my guest .
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 527

Posted 11/04/06 - 08:45 AM:	#6
Hi, I work in an area which is vaguely connected with this topic so it seems a good place to start with my first post. First, it is important to distinguish between global warming and the anthropogenic contribution to it. Few would deny that a net warming is taking place, however until recently there has been a significant minority of scientists which have not subscribed to the view that it is caused by human activity. The basis of this argument is that temperature has fluctuated widely in the past according to geological records. This is probably caused by changes in volcanic and solar activity combined with the earth's closeness to the sun and angle of tilt, although complex feedback systems can take place as well. However, there has been a sudden increase in average surface temperatures over the last 100 years, which contrasts with the temperature over the last 1000 or so, this is best illustrated in the famous hockey stick graph. Therefore, it is highly coincidental that the temperature has just happened to increase during this period if it is not anthropogenic in origin. So this settles it? Well not quite! Skeptics have pointed out that some of the temperature measurements have been conducted in urbanized areas and the changes could be due to localized temperature increase. The situation is complicated even further since there are other anthropogenic forcing factors caused by the release of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide which can enhance cloud formation, which reflects sunlight and cools the earth. In fact it has been estimated that anthropogenic cooling and heating have been almost canceling each other out, and only recently with our reduction in these trace pollutants has the western countries seen the greenhouse gas factor starting to dominate. So we are now faced with a sort of ‘double whammy’. Professional climate scientists allow for all these factors in their models and are supported with more sophisticated data collected by satellites which scan the entire globe. Overall this approach produces quite good matches between prediction and measurements, so there is now a wide consensus that a significant portion but not all of global warming is anthropogenic in origin. What is more difficult to determine though is at what rate it will warm in the future. This of course depends on the rate of economic, social and technological change, as well as the uncertainties in the meteorological estimates themselves. I hope this helps to summaries our current understanding of the situation. Edited by perseus on 03/04/07 - 10:17 AM. Reason: spelling!
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 422

Posted 11/04/06 - 09:09 AM:	#7
I don't think that we can credibly deny that it is happening. On the other hand, I don't think that we're looking at one big catclysm: we may note an increase in natural disasters and so on, and human life will likely be presented with a number of significant inconveniences but we aren't going to destroy the earth. The earth will survive and life will go on minus some coastal areas, islands, and some animals. Now, I don't want to minimise the importance of these changes, because they are indeed significant. I find it highly unlikely, however, that we can actually band together to do enough to halt or reverse the effects of global warming: after Chernobyl (and the consequent stigma against nuclear power), much of that hope was lost. What we have to concentrate on instead is preparing for the changes that will come with global warming, along with trying to minimise those changes: that is to say, we should certainly do what we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and so, but we must also brace for the coming climate change and increased frequency of natural disasters. On a related note, on Thursday evening I watched Who Killed the Electric Car? Good film, I learned a few things about electric cars that I hadn't known before, and it agreed with most of my opinions on the subject, which is nice. I have one question, however: Where are the electric companies in all of this? You'd think that they would be jumping at the chance to tap into a new market and set up monopolies early on. Why aren't they fighting just as hard to promote clean vehicles as the oil companies are to crush them? Is it that they can't manage to supply the extra energy that would be required (it is, after all, a significant amount) and that they can't foresee the financial benefits (for them) outweighing the cost of reinforcing the existing electrical infrastructure? These guys are conspicuously absent from the equation: where are they? Sure, they aren't strong enough to take on the big oil companies on their own. But neither are people with bristol board on sticks, and yet they're trying. With one or two electrical companies on their side, the Davids would stand a much better chance of achieving reform.

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 11/04/06 - 04:05 PM:	#8
On the other hand, I don't think that we're looking at one big catclysm This is a naive point of view. When global warming is considered in conjuction with: the decrease in arable land, the dissintergation of the marine bio systems, the draining of the worlds water tables, the disintegration of the ecosystem in general, the situation becomes a lot more clear. Then you must consider that when resources get scarce and systems we took for granted become unstable there is a penchant to simply fight over the remaining resources; so we may be looking at war as well, which not only accelerates the inneficient use of resources, but any serious future war (and resource wars are always serious) will involve nuclear weapons. So if you put all the previous problems in conjuction with nuclear fallout you have a cataclysm. If your position is "maybe ... maybe not; a few microbes might survive anyway. Life will go on." Why be concerned about any social problem at all? Even if Global warming wasn't man made we'd still be facing disaster if we didn't do anything about all the other problems we've caused. And even if we didn't cause all these other crises (a rediculous notion I assure you) we'd still be facing disaster if we didn't try to adapt to them as quickly as possible. The global warming skeptics seem to think that being able to doubt global warming (and you can doubt anything) means that no sustainable environmental practices need to be put in place at all. Global warming is just one out of a great many ecological problems we're facing. Even if you denied global warming was man made, how is this a justification to not do anything about the rest of our problems. The fact that most global warming skeptics are not concerned with the rest of our ecological problems is a good indication of their alterior motives. If you are geniune in your concern for the environment and still think global warming is natural, then you're just plain ignorant. The idea that the entire scientific climatology community missed a few key factors is peposterous. The same thing happened with riegenomics: "Wow, essentially every economist on the planet is wrong, you can cut taxes, increase spending and collect more tax volume thus actually collecting more taxes". If "cutting taxes" was great for society and led to more tax collection, then you'd think people would have realized by now that no taxes whatsoever means the greatest possible government revenue. The same type of baseless claims are what the global warming skeptics peddel. Just because they have millions of dollars to advertise these claims doesn't make them true. Just one example of the scientific community not being as dumb as possible. Sceptics have pointed out that some of the temperature measurements have been conducted in urbanised areas and the changes could be due to localised temperature increase. Correct, skeptics have pointed this out. However, there is no basis for this claim. Back in the forties and fifties when Global warming was starting to get looked at seriously they went out to the middle of the pacific (as far away from any urban center as possible) to start getting data of the temperature of the globe. As the data started coming back and the theories and predictions started being made the experiment was reproduced many many times in every different way they could think of, and then they sent up satalites to get an even better picture. Real scientists don't just sit around saying things without scrutinization or searching for every possible factor. Just because other people can doesn't make actual scientists wrong. Edited by Boethiusman on 11/04/06 - 04:20 PM

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 11/04/06 - 04:30 PM:	#9
Who Killed the Electric Car? Most electic companies are owned by, or are made up of the same people as oil companies. Public electric companies aren't, but public electric companies have a mandate to supply power, not invest in electric devices. In America especially whichever corperations have the most money have the most influence (corperate lobbying and corperate campaing contributions are very legal to a much greater extent than other western countries; this in conjuction with a public easilly manipulated by advertisement), oil companies have an incredible amount of influence and low and behold the law, regulation, infrastructures, and public (or lack of public) projects reflect those interest. People are generally very content with the status quo and the status quo is what they get. However, this is slowly changing; though I think it is very foolish to simply ignore the possibility of disaster on a never before seen scale I am optimistic that people in general aren't total dousch bags, and we'll start to see real changes to the world economic and energy models fairly soon and soon enough to only experience the inconveniences for life you talk about. Edited by Boethiusman on 11/04/06 - 04:35 PM

bvanzy
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 33

Posted 11/04/06 - 07:29 PM:	#10
Problem is, for an innocent on this issue, that the scientific pot appears too polluted by political activism, so it's difficult to see things with a cold clear eye. There is too much passion involved.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4216

Posted 11/04/06 - 07:45 PM:	#11
There is plenty (plenty!) of problems with the hockey stick graph. The case for global warming is not based on it. The proxies used to estimate the temperature pre-1850 are extremely (and I don't use this word lightly) vague, dendrochronology (deducing weather from tree rings) is far from being an exact science, and the hockey stick is contradicted by the historical evidence (documents from the periods in question, archaeology, etc.). The hockey stick graph makes it appear as if anthropogenic forcing is obviously the culprit (since the big rise in temperature coincides with industrial activity), but its flaws are too big to be ignored.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 11/04/06 - 07:47 PM:	#12
There is too much passion involved. There are plenty of peer review papers written by people who have stayed true to their scientific training. I find no lack of objective analysis on this issue.

amicus_curiae
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 349

Posted 11/05/06 - 03:51 AM:	#13
From my earlier post you all know my view on global warming but just thought when I was coming to the end there. Perhaps this is just a natural flux in temperatures but people down the ages couldn't do anything about it or worry about it because they didn't have the technology. It's incredibly optimistic but nevertheless a theory. Derek.
_____________________ Sapere Aude! 'Have the courage to use your own reason'

Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 422

Posted 11/05/06 - 05:20 AM:	#14
Boethiusman wrote: This is a naive point of view. When global warming is considered in conjuction with: the decrease in arable land, the dissintergation of the marine bio systems, the draining of the worlds water tables, the disintegration of the ecosystem in general, the situation becomes a lot more clear. Then you must consider that when resources get scarce and systems we took for granted become unstable there is a penchant to simply fight over the remaining resources; so we may be looking at war as well, which not only accelerates the inneficient use of resources, but any serious future war (and resource wars are always serious) will involve nuclear weapons. So if you put all the previous problems in conjuction with nuclear fallout you have a cataclysm. Naive? The idea that the world isn't going to end in one big bang? As I've said, global warming can and probably will lead to many terrible things, but none of these will, in and of itself, be cataclysmic. It's not like you'll wake up one day to see volcanoes spouting off worldwide along with the oceans gobbling up acres of coastline and species dying left and right, all at the same time. The changes will be steady, but much more gradual than that. I find fault with the pro-global warming camp (to which I belong--well, I don't mean those in favour of global warming, but those who assert that it's happening) for making it out to be one huge day of reckoning, like in that that movie where they flooded the streets of Montreal a few years ago. If your position is "maybe ... maybe not; a few microbes might survive anyway. Life will go on." Why be concerned about any social problem at all? WHOA! Hold on, there! I tried to be very careful NOT to suggest that, and NOT to suggest that I disbelieve that global warming ios occurring. What I don't believe is that all of this will happen at once, on the same day, super-duper-dramatically. Coastlines will lose ground every year, but never kilometres in a day. Desertification will increase, but whole continents aren't going to dry up in a day. Species will die, but not all on one day. And so on and so forth. Because the changes will be (relatively) gradual, humankind does indeed have a good chance of surviving and adapting. Hell, Saskatchewan will NEVER be flooded--at least, not in an immediate fashion. Does that mean that we can ignore the issue? No, of course not; we have to be prepared, and we should be working to minimise global warming's long-term impact. It's not, however, feasible at this juncture for the whole world to go green: there's too much stigma against nuclear energy, and the movements for other clean sources of energy either aren't strong enough or don't have the willpower to band together. Besides which, can you imagine Europe and the US telling China, the former Soviet Union, and the developing world that they can't use hydrocarbons any more and have to switch to clean fuel? It's simply not going to happen because none of the players are in place to make it happen. So, we need to cut our losses. Even if you denied global warming was man made, how is this a justification to not do anything about the rest of our problems. The fact that most global warming skeptics are not concerned with the rest of our ecological problems is a good indication of their alterior motives. [etc.] You're putting a real load of words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. I do not deny that global warming is taking place, and I don't think that we can get away with doing nothing--I'm a Green Party member for Pete's sake! I do deny that we are capable of halting it in its tracks or reversing it. If you are geniune in your concern for the environment and still think global warming is natural, then you're just plain ignorant. Again, you are putting words in my mouth whose presence I do not appreciate. Most electic companies are owned by, or are made up of the same people as oil companies. Public electric companies aren't, but public electric companies have a mandate to supply power, not invest in electric devices. Surely you refer only to the US? My question was not localized in the US--it is much more global. Here in Canada, for example, electric companies are owned by the provinces and so Hydro-Québec (for example) has absolutely nothing to do with Exxon or Alberta's tar sands. [In America] oil companies have an incredible amount of influence and low and behold the law, regulation, infrastructures, and public (or lack of public) projects reflect those interest. Sure, but as I said--people with sticks + a few fair-sized businesses > people with sticks. The only businesses we ever see involved in environmental issues are oil companies--where's everybody else? I suppose it's just apathy, but their absence is conspicuous.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 527

Posted 11/05/06 - 09:57 AM:	#15
Dendrochronology (deducing weather from tree rings) is far from being an exact science Dendrochronology is only one of many sources for past climate estimates, other indicators that reflect climate include vegetation, ice cores, sea level change & glacial retreat. Who Killed the Electric Car? I am not entirely convinced about the electric car conspiracy. However, I agree there is little incentive for business and governments to encourage them. In the UK were about 70% of the gasoline cost is tax substantial revenues would be lost if there was a switch to electric power. The environmental benefits of electric cars are less clear once the various inefficiencies and power source is allowed for. However, the cost, durability and energy to weight ratio of batteries have been the main reasons holding back this line of development, although there is a strong case for a short range electric urban car, especially as a second family car. There is probably a more obvious 'conspiracy' though, one encouraged by government and marketing depts and readily accepted by the consumer and voter alike, that is the false doctine of unlimited growth and wealth rather than need. We are encouraged to buy, more and bigger everything than what is really necessary. For example we buy vehicles weighing perhaps 30 times that of the driver, and these are often used in single occupant mode. When you consider that the majority of the worlds population are relatively poor but still aspire to the Western style of wealth and the west still wants more, this seems to me to be a more fundamental problem. Edited by perseus on 11/06/06 - 06:40 AM
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4216

Posted 11/05/06 - 10:06 AM:	#16
perseus wrote: Dendrochronology (deducing weather from tree rings) is far from being an exact science Dendrochronology is only one of many sources for past climate estimates, other indicators that reflect climate include vegetation, ice cores, sea level change & glacial retreat. Yes, but the data for the hockey stick rely heavily on dendrochronology (and gas content in bubbles trapped in ice sheets) as proxies for medieval temperature; the results from these procedures flatly contradict the historical record, as well as other proxies (Medieval warm period & Little Ice Age). This is just one example of the problems with the hockey stick. In my opinion, it is the most serious, but there are other (statistical) problems as well.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 11/05/06 - 11:41 AM:	#17
Naive? The idea that the world isn't going to end in one big bang? As I've said, global warming can and probably will lead to many terrible things, but none of these will, in and of itself, be cataclysmic. It's not like you'll wake up one day to see volcanoes spouting off worldwide along with the oceans gobbling up acres of coastline and species dying left and right, all at the same time. The changes will be steady, but much more gradual than that. I find fault with the pro-global warming camp (to which I belong--well, I don't mean those in favour of global warming, but those who assert that it's happening) for making it out to be one huge day of reckoning, like in that that movie where they flooded the streets of Montreal a few years ago. Definition of cataclysm from google: "catastrophe: a sudden violent change in the earth's surface" "calamity: an event resulting in great loss and misfortune; "the whole city was affected by the irremediable calamity"; "the earthquake was a disaster" "Global warming can and probably will lead to many terrible things," I have no problem reiterating as, "global warming can and probably will lead to a cataclysm." if there's nothing done about it of course. I interpreted cataclysm as "really bad" not "as bad as we can possibly imagine, such as the earth exploding". If this is not what you meant then clarify and consider the post applicable to those do propose the ideas I am arguing against. If you meant cataclysm in the sense of, "The idea that the world isn't going to end in one big bang?" then I hope you understand the cause of my misunderstanding. What I was arguing against was the laissez faire attitude to our ecological prblems. If you do not have such an attitude then consider my argument not applying to you. From my research and studies and moderate scientific training I conclude we should probably do something about the environmental problems we're facing. If you agree, then we are in agreement. Whether one thinks all these problems will be kind of bad or just really bad should be independent from one's motivation to prevent said badness. I am just as motivated to avoid having my arm lopped off than I am to avoid death (both are sufficiently bad). There should be no difference in trying to solve the problem between the "these problems will only lop off a few of humanities limbs if gone unchecked" and "these problems will destroy civilization as we know it if gone unchecked", is all I'm trying to say. For instance, I was arguing with a laissez faire "amateur economist de-enthusiast", for lack of a better word, and after showing him the problems we're facing, he agreed that these are significant problems. His response was. "Well, people are going to solve these problems." "You are a person," I answered. WHOA! Hold on, there! I tried to be very careful NOT to suggest that. Which is why I was very careful to say "If your position ...". Clearly your position was not what I was talking about. I didn't know your actual position, which is why asked, and presented my arguments against the hypothetical position which I am glad does not describe you. You're putting a real load of words in my mouth. Again, I said "If you think ..." You don't think so. However you can still agree with whether my argument applies to people who do think so. If I thought you had a position, I would say "Your position is this, and we can infer this." Surely you refer only to the US? My question was not localized in the US--it is much more global. Here in Canada, for example, electric companies are owned by the provinces and so Hydro-Québec (for example) has absolutely nothing to do with Exxon or Alberta's tar sands. Which is why I said "In America especially ..." and "Public electric companies aren't, but public electric companies have a mandate to supply power, not invest in electric devices." I live in Canada as well. Our public electric companies are run by the government, if there is no push for an electric car of some sort from the people the government doesn't invest effort in doing so. For what it's worth, the chemists I know at NRC's eyes light up when they think of the technology being held back by oil companies. Many of them, actually all of them that I know, think it's simply rediculous that we're still using something as crude as oil (no pun intended). However, perseus had articulated the greatest insight on this: There is probably a more obvious 'conspiracy' though, one encouraged by government and marketing depts and readily accepted by the consumer and voter alike, that is the false doctine of unlimited growth and wealth rather than need. We are encouraged to buy, more and bigger everything than what is really necessary. For example we buy vehicles weighing perhaps 30 times that of the driver, and these are often used in single occupant mode. Around 12 percent of, the average car's energy goes toward propulsion (the rest is lost in waste heat, noize and friction). Around 1 percent of the the cars energy is used to actually move the occupants (it goes up slightly with more occupants, but even four passengers isn't really that significant a weight compared to the weight of the car.) These numbers do get better with technology, but there's upper bounds to the efficiency of the reactions taken place (there a limit to how efficient we can make a car). Other methods have way higher upper bounds (RnD into these methods, namely hydrogen based energy storage, is a far better allocation of resources than the massive amount of RnD that has gone into making cars marginally better). However, the real question isn't, "who killed the electic car," but, "who killed the train." The electric train systems of Europe are far and a way superior. Train tracks are cheaper than roads, electric train system allows for the better management of the pollution caused by making the electricity, the train itself takes five times less energy, per weight, to move than a car, and trains go faster, a train system can be optimized, no shear volume of roads and parking inneficient use of space, and people can still do productive things on a train (like read a book, or contemplate something) whereas driving a car is an unecessary expenditure of effort and time (when communiting to work downtown for instance). When I lived in Finland, a familly still had a car (though generally only one), but everyone who commuted to work took the train and bus systems. Goaswerfraiejen, I think we are in agreement. I say "if" for a reason, so that my arguments still make sense even if the person my arguments are spurred by does not actually have the position I am arguing against. Think of my argument as arguing against anyone that would interpret your post differently than how you meant your post, and I think you will understand my method. Unless I specifically say so, or am deliniating my own position, all my arguments are open considerations against a hypothetical position, that previous posters may are may not have. I try to write as much for the chance reader and those that would join the discussion as I do for those already in the discussion. I very rarely argue against a specific person; my interest, in terms of criticism, is in arguments that I find to be popular and wrong. The laissez faire approach to the environment I find to be both popular and wrong, even if no on philosophy forum (being a particularly shrewd bunch) had this position I think it is still important to construct criticisms of it so we are all as prepared as possible to argue against those, those not interested in philosophy or at least philosophy forum, we find else where. mariner wrote: This is just one example of the problems with the hockey stick. In my opinion, it is the most serious, but there are other (statistical) problems as well. You do realize that the original "hockey stick graph" did have problems and those known problems have been accounted for since. There is no "climatology" conspiracy to cook the books. When a new factor is pointed out the climatologists go to work to take it into account. If a climatologist did disprove the globe was warming, peer review would be the first place he or she would go. However, are you arguing against the idea the globe is warming, or that this warming is caused to a significant degree by human activity? Whichever your position, could you supply your reasoning. Edited by Boethiusman on 11/05/06 - 12:00 PM

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4216

Posted 11/05/06 - 12:56 PM:	#18
Boethiusman wrote: You do realize that the original "hockey stick graph" did have problems and those known problems have been accounted for since. There is no "climatology" conspiracy to cook the books. A bad graph is not a conspiracy. It is just a bad graph. As I said, we don't need the hockey stick to establish that global warming is happening. However, are you arguing against the idea the globe is warming, or that this warming is caused to a significant degree by human activity? Whichever your position, could you supply your reasoning. I am arguing against the idea that we can, with any degree of confidence, ascribe (or not!) the responsibility to anthropogenic emissions. We simply don't have enough data. The hockey stick, if it were a good graph, would be a major piece of evidence towards establishing the responsibility of anthropogenic emissions. However, it is not a good graph, due to several shaky assumptions (not merely the statistical glitches in the original version, which, as I said, are not the most serious problems; the problem is that most other pieces of evidence contradict it).
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1491

Posted 11/06/06 - 06:05 AM:	#19
Yes, global warming is true. But wait, "peak oil" is also true. So when we run out of fossil fuels, we won't be able to create greenhouse gasses anymore! Problem solved. But a lot of animal species and people will disappear off the face of the earth. By that time, we better have a way to survive on earth-with-no-fossil-fuels, or be dead by then. I personally don't put much hope on the possibility that anyone is going to wake up and do anything about it. It is human nature to party now and pay later. There have been a few exceptions, (the Dutch used to take 300 years to recover the land. the people who started that effort would never see nor benefit from the outcome). American technological progress seems to have been driven by irrational fear (of communism and political competition) and greed (capitalism). Americans are still in denial and Americans are the biggest offenders in both categories. So -- don't count on anyone solving anything until it is too late.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 11/06/06 - 06:47 AM:	#20
I think that the book is also closed on the "we're not the one's causing it" theory. We know that we have singinficantly increased the C02 in the atmosphere. We know that CO2 rises have predated periods of global warming before. We even have good reason to believe that the Little Ice Age was caused by the loss of carbon dioxide associated with the loss of human agriculture following the Black Death.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 527

Posted 11/06/06 - 07:31 AM:	#21
Train tracks are cheaper than roads, electric train system allows for the better management of the pollution caused by making the electricity, the train itself takes five times less energy, per weight, to move than a car, and trains go faster, a train system can be optimized, no shear volume of roads and parking inefficient use of space, and people can still do productive things on a train (like read a book, or contemplate something) whereas driving a car is an unnecessary expenditure of effort and time (when commuting to work downtown for instance). Boethiusman Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say regarding productivity, and high speed trains present a much better environmental alternative to short distance air travel, I think the advantages of rail are overestimated. First of all, for short to medium trips outside metropolitan areas which take up most of our journeys, the door to door time of the automobile is far faster than a train, since you have to get to and from the station then wait of a train. Secondly most passenger services are heavily subsidised, this calls into question their economic viability. I understand the the US freight system is one of the few commercial successes of rail. Thirdly the energy efficiency of trains are compromised by low passenger utilisation, heavy carriages and the range of ancillaries which are now provided. This source estimates that the weight per passenger of a train is about 3.5 times that of a car. http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_au">http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_au... Some, other sources claim that the overall efficiency of passenger trains are less than that of cars, although I am not personally convinced about this. The poor utilisation and the large distances the trains need to stay apart reduces the effective capacity of rail lines, they are usually far less than that of a road. Lastly, people want reliability, convenience and comfort. These requirements are not easily served by a public transport system. Whilst I recognise that some of these arguments are circular, for example if more people used the trains it would lead to better utilisation and more trains and hence address some of the issues. Realistically though people will not use public transport unless it is made to be a superior mode of transport to that of the car. To achieve this I think public transport in general needs a radical and fundamental rethink. Edited by perseus on 11/06/06 - 07:49 AM
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

amicus_curiae
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 349

Posted 11/06/06 - 09:22 AM:	#22
I completely agree with Perseus' last point on public transport. In Scotland, I'll tell you for free that public transport is appalling. Why? Too expensive Too unreliable Too dirty Too few Trust me, that goes for all the different modes. It makes my blood boil to read about our government officials talking of spending X on a lovely new monorail or Y on re-introducing trams. We couldn't care less just make sure that the buses work and are cheap and the whole thing doesn't smell as bad as the driver. I went a little off topic but I felt my point had to be made. We'll continue to drive our cars until the last molecule of o-zone is destroyed unless the fundamentals are dealt with. Derek.
_____________________ Sapere Aude! 'Have the courage to use your own reason'

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 02/13/07 - 01:50 AM:	#23
Kwalish Kid wrote: Frankly, there are only two ways to describe global warming deniers: cranks and professional liars. Sigh... And nothing gets up my nose quicker than people like yourself trying to crush any reasoned discussion or questioning of the "Global Warming" scenario. Kwalish Kid wrote: If you really want the opinion of respected scientists, you would go by the study in Nature that failed to find a single scientific paper in a scientific journal that opposed global warming. As if that is evidence...evidence of what exactly ? If you don't think for a second that "Nature" doesn't knock back material that doesn't fit with their editorial position re : "Global warming". consider the following research by Svensmark. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/29830.htm... How is it that such a significant discovery is not in your "Nature" magazine ? Try looking for Svensmark's latest research findings concerning Cosmic Rays and their influence on global warming. Type his name in here...and see what you come up with ? http://www.nature.com/search/adv_search?sp-a=sp10... Surprising isn't it Kawalish, that a hugely significant discovery of that nature would simply not be in that magazine. I wonder why ? Fact of the matter, is that a lot of pressure is being brought to bare by various groups to close down the debate on Anthroprogenic global warming. And we can all guess what side of the argument is most shrill in its clamorous attempts at censorship. Kwalish Kid wrote: I think that the book is also closed on the "we're not the one's causing it" theory. Says who ? You...? Last time I checked, 'science by consensus' was only practiced by three groups in the past...the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis and Soviet era Stalinists. Kwalish Kid wrote: We know that we have singinficantly increased the C02 in the atmosphere. Proof please.. Kwalish Kid wrote: We know that CO2 rises have predated periods of global warming before. Proof please. Kwalish Kid wrote: We even have good reason to believe that the Little Ice Age was caused by the loss of carbon dioxide associated with the loss of human agriculture following the Black Death. Again, Proof please. Gramm And while we wait for your 'proofs' Read these two interesting articles. You might learn something. (unless your mind is utterly closed on the topic) http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story... http://www-tc.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/gree... Edited by Gramm on 02/13/07 - 02:13 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/13/07 - 03:47 AM:	#24
There is evidence for increased global temperatures, but there have been cycles of temperature change in the past and it is far from established that this cycle is induced by mankind. Nevertheless, it may be, and the question arises what can be done about it, or is the cycle now irreversible, or at least so developed that it would take so many years of zero emissions to reverse that effectively we are doomed anyway. If we did decide that the evidence was sufficiently overwhelming that we simply had to act, a partial solution would be next to useless, so it would need to be an almost total elimination of carbon emissions that would be required, and since we cannot hope to replace our existing energy sources with 'alternative energy' for at least 30 -50 years ( of which nuclear energy is the only really feasible option and this gives rise to a whole new basket of issues) where would that leave us except in an economic depression the scale of which we could not begin to imagine? More fundamental is the question of the overpopulation of the planet, the one that is never addressed, and from which the question of global warming may arise in the first place. Maybe to have a realistic chance of survival we need to look at how to cut back the world population, but this would also take so long to realise, and encounter so much emotional fury, that it too is most unlikely to happen before disaster is upon us, that's if disaster really is on its way. Edited by lucretius on 02/13/07 - 03:58 AM

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/13/07 - 04:09 AM:	#25
The funny thing is that many people who are so aggressive about Global Warming would be most loath to look at issues such as world overpopulation. Why would that be I wonder?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.