Global Warming Sources: Philosophy Forums

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

Global Warming Sources
Arguments, videos, documentaries, pictures, and other data listed here.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming Sources

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 535

Posted 06/09/07 - 05:06 AM:	#21
The point of carbon trading was to place a price on the emissions of GHG, so in conjunction with a stringent cap, the cooperate world would be forced to reduce emissions by the most economic means possible. For example if it cost $10/tonne to bury it in the ground, it is not worthwhile to refine biodiesel at $100/ tonne. That companies and individuals have made money out of it without the resultant pressure to actually reduce carbon is a failure of the system. The problem is if half the world doesn't trade carbon, and it is difficult to keep a check on those that do, and governments are lobbied to ask for non stringent limits. Hence the system is open to abuse and the price has collapsed. That financial institutions may have really knew this all along, I can well believe.
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

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 06/09/07 - 10:01 AM:	#22
Kwalish Kid - You constantly denounce the background of any of the sources provided, rather than the actual data. Not only does this provide no useful material to the debate, but it shows a flaw in your thought system (which, incidently, is common to many supporters of the theory of man-made global warming), which is that you cannot actually look at any contadictory data, but instead must attack the people who are simply bringing something to the table. As someone (who incidently is a believer in man-made global warming) once said to me, skeptism is one of the most beneficial things to science. If a "scientific" theory is not open to contradiction and skeptism, then it cannot truely be scientific, but rather a religious belief only with the disguise of science. Makarismos- 1) As I've said before, this is not a conspiracy (a conspiracy involves secret ploting and such). This is a societial religion that has developed over time, and its churches have finally appeared, like the EPA and the IPCC. And in truth, man-made global warming is one of many societial religions that have the notion of making human beings look bad, and cute little animals and pleasant-looking plant life societial idols. This behavior traces back to our early childhood when be saw cute cartoon shows with people in the shape of cute animals, and was imbeded into our minds. 2) Of course we're going to run out of oil. I'm for a replacement fuel to use instead of oil (mostly because I'd like for us to starve Iran's treasury to death), but I don't want to see the oil companies suffer simply because of the latest End of the World belief. They just want to make some money in the free market (it may not be entirely free, but it's the closest we've been able to get to one), and the world has this strange adversion to that. 3) It's our gadgets, or should I say properly, our technology, that makes us great, that makes us powerful. The Green religion is counter to progress, counter to the best interests of our species. It's technology that can give humans the chance to shed its humanity (its flawedness), and ascend to the stars. We are on the verge of the space civilization, the cyber age, and it's this worship of "Mother Earth" that stands in our way. I simply do not see how becoming more dependent on nature is desirable. Independence from nature, immunity from plagues, diseases, and natural disasters, freedom from it all. Of course, freedom does also mean responsibility, so becoming independent from nature will not mean destroying it. And granted, we have damaged our environment in some ways (i.e. nuclear waste being pilled up in Siberia), but it's not like we have cause a massive disruption of the world's climate. Frankly, I'm annoyed that we have the arrogance to claim to know how the world's climate works. Can we predict the wheather? And on a similar note, can we predict hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic activity? Sure, we have some small prediction method for the wheather, but we have no coherent knowlegde of the entire system. We only know what is likely to happen once the wheather pattern in question has begun to manifest. It seems that humanity practices either false humility or true arrogance rather than true humility and intelligence. 4) I frankly do not see how it is wrong for an oil company to make money simply because it's an oil company and it's in Iraq. Or even if it's an oil company. This whole myth about our troops dying so that Haliburton can have oil is bullsh*t. Our troops are dying trying to stop a civil war (and even though I used to support the Iraq War, I'd rather have our troops in Afganistan fighting the Taliban rather than delaying the inevitable split of Iraq like the inevitable split of Yugoslavia), while it's Haliburton's employees dying to secure the oil. If Haliburton wants to go get it's workers killed, let 'em.
Hi.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 06/09/07 - 10:36 AM:	#23
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Kwalish Kid - You constantly denounce the background of any of the sources provided, rather than the actual data. Not only does this provide no useful material to the debate, but it shows a flaw in your thought system (which, incidently, is common to many supporters of the theory of man-made global warming), which is that you cannot actually look at any contadictory data, but instead must attack the people who are simply bringing something to the table. As someone (who incidently is a believer in man-made global warming) once said to me, skeptism is one of the most beneficial things to science. If a "scientific" theory is not open to contradiction and skeptism, then it cannot truely be scientific, but rather a religious belief only with the disguise of science. The problem is not that I cannot look at contradictory data, but that, in this debate, nobody here can look at the data, contradictory or not. Unfortunately, most people are at the mercy of experts in the field. Thus it is important to look at who is and who is not an expert. For example, most people wouldn't find people who believe that aliens were behind Comet Hale-Bopp (like those at www.tmgnow.com) to be reliable experts. You seem to be accepting the claim that actual climatologists are not skeptical and that they do not make the most basic steps in scientific reasoning. I urge you to question your sources and reasoning around this claim. 1) As I've said before, this is not a conspiracy (a conspiracy involves secret ploting and such). This is a societial religion that has developed over time, and its churches have finally appeared, like the EPA and the IPCC. And in truth, man-made global warming is one of many societial religions that have the notion of making human beings look bad, and cute little animals and pleasant-looking plant life societial idols. This behavior traces back to our early childhood when be saw cute cartoon shows with people in the shape of cute animals, and was imbeded into our minds. Unfortuantely, you pretty much have to accept that there is some conspiracy going on. For it is either the case that there is no scientific merit to the case of the global warming deniers (and those who suppport global cooling) or there is a conspiracy to ban them from the scientific journals. And granted, we have damaged our environment in some ways (i.e. nuclear waste being pilled up in Siberia), but it's not like we have cause a massive disruption of the world's climate. Actually, the science says that it is exactly like that. Frankly, I'm annoyed that we have the arrogance to claim to know how the world's climate works. Are you saying that your ability to accept a scientific claim comes down to how annoying the conclusion is? This is why I try to get people to look at their sources for information. We cannot simply look to the sources that we like, but to sources that have some credibility on the matter of interest. 4) I frankly do not see how it is wrong for an oil company to make money simply because it's an oil company and it's in Iraq. Or even if it's an oil company. This whole myth about our troops dying so that Haliburton can have oil is bullsh*t. Well, you do realize that the only benchmark for troop withdrawl so far adopted by the US government is that the Iraq government privatize its oil industry? However, this is besides the point. Global warming is not about profit making. Indeed, it is ultimately about economic interest.
"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 [This is included for the irony.]

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 06/10/07 - 07:57 AM:	#24
Kwalish Kid wrote: The problem is not that I cannot look at contradictory data, but that, in this debate, nobody here can look at the data, contradictory or not. Unfortunately, most people are at the mercy of experts in the field. Thus it is important to look at who is and who is not an expert. For example, most people wouldn't find people who believe that aliens were behind Comet Hale-Bopp (like those at www.tmgnow.com) to be reliable experts. You seem to be accepting the claim that actual climatologists are not skeptical and that they do not make the most basic steps in scientific reasoning. I urge you to question your sources and reasoning around this claim. My reasoning is simple: there are many more new "scientists" that have entered the field of climatology. Why? Because there is money to be made just from supporting the global warming hysteria. Sources? The Great Global Warming Swindle,Penn & Teller's Bullsht*, and a little of my own personal observations. Further more, these new "scientists" have very little in the way of experience or skill, yet they get all the necessary qualifications just by saying the right things. Unfortuantely, you pretty much have to accept that there is some conspiracy going on. For it is either the case that there is no scientific merit to the case of the global warming deniers (and those who suppport global cooling) or there is a conspiracy to ban them from the scientific journals. There is no conspiracy to ban them. Many scientific journalists are expected to do so, or lose their jobs. Not to mention that plenty of these journalists are so weak minded that they are happy to follow the suit. Actually, the science says that it is exactly like that. There you people go again, talking like there is no room for contradiction. This is exactly why I started having doubts about the theory of man-made global warming in the first place: people talking as if they're right and everyone else is wrong. Well, my friend, this is exactly why what you support is not science, but a religion with the appearance of a scientific theory. It can only be science if people are allowed to have a go at contradicting and/or disproving it. Are you saying that your ability to accept a scientific claim comes down to how annoying the conclusion is? This is why I try to get people to look at their sources for information. We cannot simply look to the sources that we like, but to sources that have some credibility on the matter of interest. I never said anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth. And if you people to look at their sources, look at your own, only without the notion that since they are a major organization, they must be right. Major pharametic groups advertise plenty of pills and other drugs to solve people's illnesses, yet if you look at alternative medicine, there are plenty of natural herbs and such that do the same thing, only with out a bunch of negative symptoms as result. Do scientists lie? Yes, because they are human, because they are greedy. We have only begun this idea that scientists would never lie to us because we became tired of religious superstition, but think for a moment: where did the superstition come from? Humans. And what species do the scientists belong to? Human. I may be a firm believer in the greatness and usefulness of science, but I don't blindly follow every word a scientist says. I give his/her theory a long, long time for somebody to come along and try to smash it, and if it survives, I will accept it as truth until proven otherwise. Well, you do realize that the only benchmark for troop withdrawl so far adopted by the US government is that the Iraq government privatize its oil industry? The benchmark they have for withdrawl is that Bush does not wish to see Iraq have a civil war. Nor do I, but I don't see what good we can do there any more. We could be better deployed in Afghanistan right now. Hal can take it's risks. Besides, we finished what we came to Iraq to do: take out Hussien and give Iraq a shot at freedom. If they don't want freedom, fine. However, this is besides the point. Global warming is not about profit making. Indeed, it is ultimately about economic interest. Profit is one of many things that man-made global warming is about. Other things include hysteria, societial pressure, emotion, and an unconcious attempt to undo every blessing of the Industrial Revolutions, which transformed us from pathetic villagers into a glorious consumer society, which only has the problem of obessity, but people have been getting fat in history for ages. But don't mind me. After all... IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! THE PLANET'S TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN BY TWO WHOLE DEGREES!!! JUST AS GORE PROPHECIZED!!! QUICK! BAN THE OIL COMPANIES!!! IT'S OUR LAST CHANCE!!!
Hi.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 06/10/07 - 10:12 AM:	#25
Mr.Anonymous wrote: There is no conspiracy to ban them. Many scientific journalists are expected to do so, or lose their jobs. Not to mention that plenty of these journalists are so weak minded that they are happy to follow the suit. I'm not sure you really understand how science works outside of the public eye. In the above, do you mean "journalists who cover science" or "the editors and referees of scientific journals". If you want to talk sources, then you have to talk about actual scientific journals, not press coverage. And when one talks about scientific journals, one has to admit that global warming deniers cannot get published and never have been published. So either there is a conspiracy from the start, or the science of the deniers is simply not good. Then, when one starts to look at who promotes the global warming deniers (wholly outside of the normal scientific community) one finds incentive to distort the science regardless of its merit.
"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 [This is included for the irony.]

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 736

Posted 06/10/07 - 06:46 PM:	#26
HI !! Is everyone fine today? Please forgive my suddenly burstin in here, still standing looking the place over while the waistdoors are still swaying from my having entered, and the piano music suddenly stopped--all faces staring at me. I am surprized to find an element of otional exchange that one would usually expect to see in the religious fora--not that it would be totally absent in a scientific fora, but. . . I will check and see if I can find any articles from the science journals that I have--of course I am far, far behind in my reading, though. If there were anything that I would hope for (in whatever limited rights or authority I may seem to have in the mind of you fellow PF members) it would be that there would be no personal attacks as I have noticed. (it's the first time to see that side in some members) I hope to return fairly soon (with info. but will continue to read); sorry for the interruption...carry on !

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 507

Posted 06/11/07 - 12:02 PM:	#27
Here's the Greenpeace video and an article on the Rongbuk glacier: -YouTube Greenpeace Video. -Greenpeace Article.
There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. � Camus.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 736

Posted 06/13/07 - 01:11 AM:	#28
I will try to put this into a readible format with as little interpretation as I am self-aware of being able to do. From the outset, I will state that I lean more towards the conclusion that human activity is the factor that is tipping the scales (in what would otherwise--and still is in one eccentric way of looking at what animal life is--be simply the state of nature outside of human activity) towards Climate Change. In the introduction to Polar Science¹, the writers point out that the International Polar Year (IPY) 2-year research initiative launched this month, will help get a better picture of where the Artic and Antarctica have been and where they are going. They give note to the idea that 'how fast sea levels rise over the coming century,' being 'potentially one of the most serious consequences of global warming,' is related to 'how fast the polar ice sheets melt.' The tone opens on a fair and balanced, this is the data, these are the facts, without trying to aruge for a main cause for global climate change, but throughout the articles and papers that follow, that there is an unusual warming trend does not generally seemed to be challenged. (of course that's not the purpose of this journal anyway) In the past 30 years, Fraser and his colleagues have witnessed a stunning change in the climate, one that is altering the mix of species in the West Antarctic Peninsual. 'This ecosystem is on fire.' says Hugh Ducklow of the College of William and Mary Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Gloucester Point. ² As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. (the paper points out that this is only a modest contribution to the 3.0 millimeters rise in sea-level per year.)³ Linear trends in arctic sea-ice extent over the period 1979 to 2006 are negative in every month. This ice loss is best viewed as a combination of strong natural variability in the coupled ice-ocean-atmosphere system and a growing radiative forcing associated with rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the latter supported by evidence of qualitative consistency between observed trends and those simulated by climate models over the same period. ⁴ Notable warming trends have been observed in the Artic. Although increased human-induced emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases are certainly the main driving factor, air pollutants, such as aerosols and ozone, are also important. ⁵ The above three quotes are from the abstacts of thos papers. The last one, just above, is the last paper in that special on Polar Science, so I will quote from the last paragraph of that report. Most of the ongoing and predicted rapid changes in the Artic climate are a direct onsequence of the increasing levels of long-lived greenhouse gases and posititve feedbacks specific to the Arctic. ⁶In order to combat these changes, reductions in the omissions of long-lived greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are urgently needed. However, the Arctic may also benefit more than other regions from reductions in the emissions of short-lived climate agents. In particular, reducing BC [Black Carbon] emissions could slow atmospheric warming and the melting of snow and ice, and reducing troposheric ozone concentrations could slow the increase in Arctic surface air temperatures. I'll give some more from Science, Scientific American, and NewScientist in the up-coming posts. 1. SpecialSection by E. Pennisi, J. Smith, and R. Stone; Science Vol 315, March 16, '07, p1513 2. Boom and Bust in a Polar Hot Zone by Erik Stokstad, ibid, pp1522-23. 3. Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets by A. Shepherd and D. Wingham (Center for Polar Observation and Modeling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, and (ditto), Department of Earth Sciences, University College London--respectively, ibid, pp1529-32. 4. [i [Perspectives on the Artic's Shrinking Sea-Ice Cover[/i] by M.C. Sereze, M.M. Holland, and J. Stroeve (the first and last of Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, and the middle author of National Center for Atmospheric Research), ibid, pp1533-36. 5. Artic Air Pollution: Origins and Impacts by K.S. Law and A. Stohl (of Service d'Aeronomie, CNRS, IPRS/Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris and Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILC), Kjeller, Norway, respectively) ibid, pp1537-40. Here the authors refer to [i]Climate Change 2001; The Scientific Basis, edited by J.T. Houghton (IPCC).

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 736

Posted 06/15/07 - 09:12 AM:	#29
This is a little from an article in NewScientist (27 Aug. '05; pp26-30)--The Flaw In the Thaw, by F. Pearce. The article basically points to there being more reasons than just global warming, for the shrinking glaciers. Yet again, though, we cannot leap from the local to the global. The temperatures in the tropical Andes are rising in part due to the increased frequency and intensity of El Nino, the Pacific climate anomaly. How much the changes to El Nino are tied to global warming and how much to natural climate oscillations is an open question. So the link between the dramatic loss of ice in the tropical Andes and climate change is not as clear as it appears. (p29) If, as virtually all climatologists now believe, the fingerprints of human activity can be seen all over the rise in global temperatures over the past half-century, then they are all over the retreat of glaciers too. Glaciologists may still be arguing about the comings and goings of specific glaciers such as those on Kilimanjaro, but they are in absolutely no doubt about the big picture; the glacers are shrinking ever faster because of global warming. (p30) Until recently, climatologists thought it would take thousands of years of warming to melt the vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Now many think they could collapse within centuries. (p30)

James Weisbrod
Mad Genius

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 35

Posted 06/15/07 - 07:13 PM:	#30
Some interesting stuff from the BBC.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm How can you come to a final conclusion if you can't understand all of the variables in a formula... I am pro Green... Better lifestyles ect... but to sell it as fact when it is only theory is wrong... But hey... Who doesn't do it...
http://www.sitebyjames.com

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.