Environmental Issues

[cableguy]

gibson, have you followed any of the links i have posted?? i must assume you have not, as if you had, you would see that i have, in fact, provided more than scant scientific evidence to back up my case... iceberg has pointedly rejected anything i have posted here for whatever his reasons are... if you are to be critical of me, you must direct equal criticism at him, and at yourself, as you are both guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of...


to the move out of your house analogy, i have thought of something that works... cosmic rays... the only proof you have of these "cosmic rays" is some slight fading of dark colored fabrics that are exposed to sunlight... the entire cost of moving was yours alone, and that you would also have to give up your car (not sell it) and trade it for a bicycle, because your car was causing these "cosmic rays" or allowing them to penetrate earths atmosphere...

to recap, you have a group of scientists telling you that you live in a dangerous area, affected by cosmic rays, and your car is part of the reason for them being a problem... to be safe, you must immediately leave your house and move into an apartment, and give, not sell, your car away and buy a bicycle to replace it... another group of scientists is telling you to not worry, that these "cosmic rays" are simply sunlight, and what you are seeing on darc fabric is simple fading due to contact with light... typical, nonthreatening, harmless... still interested in moving??

you have provided scientists who were way ahead of magellan in determining the earth is round... tell me, how much acceptance did they recieve, and how many were put to death or imprisoned for saying such things?? it took an actual person, in an actual ship, to prove this one beyond a doubt... same is true of disproving the geocentric universe theory, which was actually considered heresy... what i am saying is that scientists are not always right, even though many may agree on something... history shows us many occasions where this was simply not true... the sound barrier might be another area of interest for this argument, as would be heavier than air flight...

 

[Gibson]

http://www.cleanairprogress.org/news/leavittcorrect_10_01_04.asp
http://www.econot.com/page3.html
http://www.junkscience.com
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/041118/041118-4.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_wine_climate.html
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/navigator/articles/nav+rbidinotto_death-by-environmentalism.asp

Those are the links you have posted concerning global warming and environmntal issues, as well as an article titled "Mount St. Helens Is State's Top Polluter". One link supports an early argument of yours, two support your current argument, three do not provide support, and one is not scientific.

It's insane to think that any situation would cause hundreds of millions of people to change their way of life without questioning why they must make such a change. In fact, I never suggested that you, personally, should sell your car and move to an apartment. Your argument makes loads of sense to me and I have thought seriously about it. However, I personally would rather not ignore the issue of global warming incase it is indeed occurring. If you want to drive a massive SUV that gets 20 miles/gallon, that's your decision. I won't be driving one because (a) I hate them and (b) it would be hypocritical if I did.

I believe scientists when they tell me that the earth's temperature is increasing due to human actions, and I believe scientists when they tell me that this increase is a natural phenomenon. Why? Because they all know more than I do. In the end, it's entirely up to myself to decide which side to support. I've chosen the former, you've chosen the latter. I only got sucked into this debate when I tried to look smart and pointed out what I thought was a flaw in your argument. I admit my error. I also feel that I have adequately explained why I think global warming is a serious issue. Other than mentioning a few ancient mathematicians, no science was used for reasons that I pointed out earlier. If you want to continue asking me the same question about what I would do in certain situation if one scientist told me one thing and another something else, I will give you the same answer.

 

[Iceberg]

gibson, have you followed any of the links i have posted?? i must assume you have not, as if you had, you would see that i have, in fact, provided more than scant scientific evidence to back up my case... iceberg has pointedly rejected anything i have posted here for whatever his reasons are... if you are to be critical of me, you must direct equal criticism at him, and at yourself, as you are both guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of...

Ummm, cableguy, the links you had provided are NOT scientific. They are all industry PR trying to disguise itself as science (like FOX News is Republican PR disguised as news).

Here is an excellent description of the weasel-tactics of global warming skeptics (and please, don't be afraid to click on the links):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98

My reason for rejecting the stuff you have posted here is that they are full of scientific inaccuracies. The stuff you have posted has been repeatedly proven wrong by climatologists (i.e. people who study the climate system, therefore experts in climatology). I am also able to reject these items you have posted since I have read many scientific reports (from scientists at NOAA, the IPCC, Environment Canada, and most other internationally respected scientific organisations). I do have a B.Sc. in physical geography which focused on meteorology and climatology. I'm not a member of the general public when it comes to these issues. (However, I'm not an expert, at least not yet, but I will be on my way to graduate school in a couple of years after writing an honours' thesis on an aspect of global warming.)

What is your educational background, cableguy? How many reports, articles from scholarly (i.e. peer-reviewed) journals, or books on climate issues have you read?

I've shed thousands of dollars on courses, conferences, and lectures that deal with these issues. I'm not willing to let someone get away with considering me just some everyday Joe after all the effort I've put in.

 

[oscaraustin]

So, much for Conman's enjoyment of this not getting personal, it's pretty much right on the line now. Questioning tact almost always leads to questioning intellect, which leads to fancy 5 dollar word name calling.

This has been at a stalemate for about 3 pages now. Really with nothing new brought to the table, yes new articles, but basically stating the same thing. I know, Ice thinks cable isn't bringing legit evidence, and cable thinks Ice is blatantly disregarding cable's articles because they disagree with his theory, and they both think the other is "losing"... truth is it's a stalemate that's being drug out on and on and on. Global warming has been done pretty much to death. You (I'm singling you two out, you are the big pushers here, though I could say we), so we, have all put onto this forum what we hold to be sufficient evidence for our beliefs, and have had the opposite side to look at as well, and it's getting really old.

Environmental Issues... could we move onto something like septic leeching, tiling for farmland, wetland reduction (that would be just as ugly as global warming i suppose though), desertification, ... and so on, I'm sure anyone in this thread knows the list.

We have done global warming to death, it was a good back and forth, but it's like tennis when it's back and forth endlessly it gets really lame, if you don't like tennis then basketball... back and forth back and forth.... i personally don't like either.

 

[Iceberg]

Environmental Issues... could we move onto something like septic leeching, tiling for farmland, wetland reduction (that would be just as ugly as global warming i suppose though), desertification, ... and so on, I'm sure anyone in this thread knows the list.

I'm game for this, though I am less knowledgeable about these issues.

So, much for Conman's enjoyment of this not getting personal, it's pretty much right on the line now. Questioning tact almost always leads to questioning intellect, which leads to fancy 5 dollar word name calling.

I wasn't getting personal. I was just asking how much education and how much reading cableguy has done on global warming. I never questioned his intellect. Intellect has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with how one uses their mind.

 

[mindido]

I agree with OscarAustin about where this thread has been going lately but I do agree with Iceberg completely. When I was in school (back in the mid 80's) the arguments were the same. The only thing that has changed is the amount of data that supports global warming.

The last thing I can say to Cableguy and others with similar beliefs is to be careful about where you get your data and what are the motives of those that you choose to believe. There is an old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

I think thats where we are at right now.

 

[cableguy]

as an unofficial pundit of more than 25 years, i have researched many hot button issues in depth over the years... thankfully, with the internet, this process is much faster and easier than it once was... i do not posess a college degree, but have several years of college courses in varying areas under my belt... i also presently have no plans to complete a degree, as presently, there is no benefit to my doing so...

i resent those who point to a specific education as validation of themselves and reject the great unwashed out of hand, because they werent smart enough or motivated enough to get that piece of paper that is a diploma/degree... this is not necessarily a dig at iceberg or anyone else specifically here, but a generalized statement... if any of you reading this fall into that category, you know who you are...

a college degree is a piece of paper certifying you have taken a number of courses within the confines of a degree program, and passed them... it does not make one smarter than those without degrees, and it does not make one better than those without degrees... it doesnt make one smart, and is not proof of any certain intelligence...

am i a scientist?? no... i will also likely not become one... am i qualified to comment on scientific arguments?? definitely... as is everyone else here and everywhere... can i bring something to the table on the global warming argument?? again, most definitely... this argument is half science, and half politics... if we are to accept the notion of global warming as a problem, and/or that it is manmade, there are political decisions that need to be made that WILL have global ramifications, most notably in already developed nations, such as the one i live in... this brings constitutionality into play, and as most of you know, i am real big on private property rights and the concept of a hands off government... on THIS, i am willing to term myself very qualified...

gibson, like myself, made arguments that were not scientifically based... can a nonscientific argument be used in the war over global warming?? if it is cogent and germane, most definitely... that some of my ammunition isnt science, but common sense, should not disqualify it...

i believe that correlation can exist without causation, and that there has yet to be a definitive separation made to date... i believe some scientists WANT there to be manmade global warming, for whatever reason... i believe there cannot possibly be enough valid data to come to any worthwhile conclusion... i believe a problem should be defined narrowly, its causes determined beyond a doubt, and that all REASONABLE solutions should be explored free of any emotion... i believe global warming has yet to proove itself a problem, much less a manmade problem, and as such, cannot be defined, and no attempt should be made to solve it... i believe there is no problem associated with any global warming that might be occurring, and that if global warming is occurring, it probably is doing so of its own accord, with any human interaction simply being a sideshow...

there you go, i have had what i am perfectly happy calling my last words here on this topic, and am perfectly willing to move on to any others...

ddt: bring it back!!!
septic leeching: local zoning and normal property turnover, plus the addition of sewer lines in many areas are making this problem a nonfactor, at least here in the USA
wetland reduction: this is more an argument of private property rights than anything environmental, as is anything involving endangered species
desertification: as far as i know, this one can be blamed on mother nature
greenpeace, sierra club, earth first, and other environmental protection organizations: this one could be fun... private property rights, criminal law, and altering behavior...

gibson, where are you able to find a large suv that gets 20mpg??? my car only gets about 18...

 

[oscaraustin]

I'll get to something more on topic later, just wanted a brief reply and clarification.

a college degree is a piece of paper certifying you have taken a number of courses within the confines of a degree program, and passed them... it does not make one smarter than those without degrees, and it does not make one better than those without degrees... it doesnt make one smart, and is not proof of any certain intelligence...

I agree completely with this statement. I find the most useful, and best learning i get comes outside of the classroom. There are some classes where I learn abundant amounts, though it's basically the professor and environment + interest. Although as a general rule, what learning is most useful for the real world, is learned in the real world and not in a classroom.

Secondly, just for clarification. I agreed with cable on the global warming front, in that i believe it is primarily a force of mother nature that is part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling, although humanities presence has served to increase the current rate of warming.

Oh yea,

I wasn't getting personal. I was just asking how much education and how much reading cableguy has done on global warming. I never questioned his intellect. Intellect has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with how one uses their mind.

Sorry for lack of clarity, i guess. I didnt mean you had gotten personal at all. Nor did i think you or cable would, you'd kept it clean and probably would have kept it so. it just seemed like if it were to keep up, newcomers may have decided to jump onboard in a more personal manner. No attack meant on my part.

 

[Iceberg]

Just one more article I had to pass along before we go on to a different topic (for now, anyway).

http://www.fair.org/extra/0411/global-warming.html

 

[cableguy]

and one more from me...

http://fightbigovercoat.org

 

[mindido]

Hey Cableguy,

I think this is a part of the whole discussions problem:

"i believe that correlation can exist without causation, and that there has yet to be a definitive separation made to date... i believe some scientists WANT there to be manmade global warming, for whatever reason... i believe there cannot possibly be enough valid data to come to any worthwhile conclusion... i believe a problem should be defined narrowly, its causes determined beyond a doubt, and that all REASONABLE solutions should be explored free of any emotion... i believe global warming has yet to proove itself a problem, much less a manmade problem, and as such, cannot be defined, and no attempt should be made to solve it... i believe there is no problem associated with any global warming that might be occurring, and that if global warming is occurring, it probably is doing so of its own accord, with any human interaction simply being a sideshow..."

When I was in school I had an engineering prof. that was adament about separating beliefs from science. When you build a bridge you had better KNOW what type of bedrock you are building on because if you don't, if you believe its something else and go ahead, the consequences can be catastrophic.

That is why some of your arguments are not seriously considered. If there was serious data to support the argument then there would be serious consideration. A belief system is just not good enough when the possible consequences are so drametic.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, there is a crucial difference that some folks have a hard time seeing... i agree completely with your engineering prof... the thing is, im not the one pushing for any changes to be made... i am fine without the bridge... the global warming argument, and the consequences of actions taken to counteract it, are the "bridge", the science behind it is the "bedrock." id rather not build that bridge until everything is known about where its footings will go...

the consequences of racing ahead, willy-nilly, to solve something that might not be a problem, and if it is, might not be solvable, could DEFINITELY have dire consequences... if the whole global warming threat turns out to be more belief system than science, it too should be considered "just not good enough." the consequences of reacting to global warming can be quantified, depending on the reaction taken... the consequences, if any, of inaction are purely theoretical... pick your poison, but know that a global recession or depression is likely if you react to something that might not be a problem, and that doesnt have ANY definite consequences...

step through the door and peer through the other side of the window... the view from in here is quite nice...

 

[Iceberg]

the consequences of racing ahead, willy-nilly, to solve something that might not be a problem, and if it is, might not be solvable, could DEFINITELY have dire consequences... if the whole global warming threat turns out to be more belief system than science, it too should be considered "just not good enough." the consequences of reacting to global warming can be quantified, depending on the reaction taken... the consequences, if any, of inaction are purely theoretical... pick your poison, but know that a global recession or depression is likely if you react to something that might not be a problem, and that doesnt have ANY definite consequences...

Uh-oh. Cable, you and mindido have brought me back into it again...

http://us.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/01/12/west.storms.ap/index.html

http://us.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/01/12/california.mudslide/index.html

http://us.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/12/australia.wildfires/index.html

Three stories today and yesterday where severe weather has occurred, all likely occurred and/or exacerbated by climate change.

Look at this map, too. Look at all the crazy weather occurring in North America.

http://www.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc29&image=566_noaa.gif

Also, a tornado, extreme wind events, and hail in Missouri, hail in Michigan, and the list will go on throughout the night.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/050112_rpts.html

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/050113_rpts.html (Will be active Thursday.)

Also, if you think tornadoes may be not so uncommon in January in Missouri, they are. Few tornadoes occur north of the Mason-Dixon line in January in such a continental climate zone. (i.e. It is more common an occurrence in Virginia than Missouri, despite the similar latitude, due to the proximity to the ocean where warmer, more humid air can be sucked into a storm, giving it more energy to work with.)

The last couple of days and the next couple of days will see some crazy weather happen. A super storm has been predicted for the Midwestern US for today (Wednesday) and tomorrow (and possibly Friday as well).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0105-06.htm (Forget this is a Commondreams story for a second, because it isn't. It's from Knight-Ridder.)

 

[Texan]

For those that dont recognize the costline, that is South Texas, and that is snow. Now tell me how Global Warming caused this.

 

[cableguy]

tex, that isnt actually snow you are seeing, it is a mysterious white, powdery substance that needs to be investigated and kept from the public eye.. everyone knows texas is a dustbowl, and that snow in such places is impossible... go back to your corn flakes, your nascar, and your 'rasslin, and do not look outside... there is nothing there to see..


iceberg, yes, there is indeed weird weather happening... there is ALWAYS weird weather happening... i live in midwestern America, and today starts the coldest stretch we have had here since *gasp* 1996!!! weird weather?? only in comparison to the past 7 years... historically, this is quite normal...

i would like to take this time to thank you for crediting/blaming climate change for random weather related events with nothing beyond supposition for a basis... you want it to be related to climate change, so it is easier to justify it that way... to me, weather has always been freaky and rather unpredictable...

what caused a blizzard in 1991, on halloween, that dropped more than a foot of snow on the twin cities of minnesota?? what caused a storm that, in early july of 1987 or 1988, left over a foot of rain in two hours??? to my knowledge, no one knows... unpredictable, and weird...

one year, a couple decades ago, my family went through chicago a day or two before christmas... there was no snow on the ground, and a warm breeze filtered through downtown... this is over TWENTY years ago... most definitely an exception and not the norm, unpredictable in that chicago usually has snow and cold in late december...

i recall reading about a temperature rise so severe, and in such a short time, that windows broke because of it... this, too, happened a long time ago, perhaps before i was even born... it was a several hours long event in which the temp climbed 60-80 degrees, then fell back to "normal." predictable? no... weird?? yes...

why is weird weather not just weird weather?? seems to me that we are hard pressed to accurately predict what will happen more than a few hours into the future... until this science becomes better, arent we best left not jumping to conclusions about what may have caused something "strange" to happen?? weird weather happens, has always happened, and will continue to happen...

as we grow farther from childhood, time seems to compress, and what may have been a crystal clear memory from childhood, or even a few years back, fadee in contrast to the here and now... naturally, you remember this year better than last, and so forth... what we see as weird weather fades from memory as it is replaced by more recent "weird" weather... the cumulative effects of this leave you with more memories of uncommon weather that are recent than what your life experience has given you...

weather best classified as "weird" happens every year... as i live in minnesota, and this mornings paper tells me i have HIGH temperatures of 9, -4, -7, and -6 these next four days (the LOW temps are -11, -18, -20, and -12), i will keep in mind that though uncharacteristic for recent times, this is what i remember from my childhood and school years... these temps are actually NORMAL for january in minnesota...

assorted excerts from your last posted article, which i find rather prescient:

"You're talking a two- or three-times-a-century type of thing," said prediction center senior meteorologist James Wagner, who's been forecasting storms since 1965. "It's a pattern that has a little bit of everything."

The last time a similar situation seemed to be brewing - especially in the West - was in January 1950, O'Lenic said. That month, 21 inches of snow hit Seattle, killing 13 people in an extended freeze, and Sunnyvale, Calif., got an unusual tornado.

The same scenario played out in 1937, when there was record flooding in the Ohio River Valley, said Wagner, of the prediction center.

The American Meteorological Society will meet next week in usually tranquil San Diego, which should be hit with the predicted storms and accompanying flooding in time for the group's gathering.

In 1987,when the meteorologists met in San Antonio for their convention, the city had ice storms. In 1993, when they gathered in Anaheim, Calif., it rained for 4.5 out of five days and triggered mudslides. Atlanta got rare snow during the meteorologists' 1996 convention. And in 2003 in Long Beach, Calif., heavy rain greeted them.

so you see, this is rare and uncommon, but nothing that is a first, and nothing that should be tied to climate change... the past quote i pulled from the article is somewhat tongue in cheek, but there it is; an admission that it is the convergence of meteorologists, NOT climate change, that is to be blamed...

 

[Gowar]

I see all of this stuff and all of this out of the ordinary weather. (which as was pointed out earlier may just be a cycle) But, there has to be some detrimental effects of us just burning our hydrocarbons and pumping all of this garbage into the air. Lets not all forget about how CFS (Chlorofluorocarbons SP?) are mostly outlawed in all new appliances. This was a direct consequence of the massive bloody hole over antarctica. Certainly this is not improving the quality of our air. And as for global warming, and snow in texas, there is alot of wierd shit going on. Remember the 4000 people who died in france last summer because of a heatwave? Why did they die? Because the french normally dont need airconditioning and all the old people died of heatstrokes!

 

[cableguy]

outstanding, gowar... i was waiting for this one... the stated position of there being a hole in the ozone layer over antarctica is just plani false, and true... you see, the ozone layer over antarctica is on a yearly cycle... part of the year, it is completely intact, and part of the year, it is a shredded mass...
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.htm

depending on what time of year it is, the ozone layer looks dramatically different... to say this is meaningful is to use the melting of snow in springtime as evidence of global warming...

the reason we have no cfcs anymore has little, if anything, to do with science, and much to do with the rantings of an eco-nut... we are also minus ddt for the same resaon... not because it is harmful, but because it reached a certain point of political unpopularity...

here are a list of links, all of them properly sourced, the first three come from australia, and are amont the best sourced writings i have found on this topic, and the others come from http://junkscience.com... i suspect there will be little interest in them, but if you are a free individual, this is stuff you should at least look at... believe it or not, but please do take a look...

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/230899.htm
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/010899a.htm
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/270999.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUtemps.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UHIE.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Quotes.htm

i may get savaged by providing links from but two websites, but if i can find the info i want condensed into two sites, i have no problem using it... as i said before, these are well sourced, and not something you will find anywhere that has accepted global warming as the coming armageddon...

 

[Gowar]

Never seen that before cable guy. Interesting Stuff. But why ban CFCS if they did nothing? And like I stated before what about all the crap we are breathing in?

 

[Texan]

Outstanding Cable, I think that if everyone steps back about ohh 500 million miles then take a look at the "Big Picture" (3 years of Physics wouldn't hurt either) everything would fall into place. Everyone should know what causes the seasons to change, if you don't it is relative to distance the earth is from the sun. The closer we are to the sun the hotter it is and the further we are the colder it is. Now where does it say that the earth travels the exact same path and has the exact same tilt? It doesn't!! Think about it!!

Good link discusses above.
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/fi...es/lecture_notes/Global_Climate/GC_part2.html

 

[oscaraustin]

Everyone should know what causes the seasons to change, if you don't it is relative to distance the earth is from the sun. The closer we are to the sun the hotter it is and the further we are the colder it is.

That's not actually true. The actual distance the Earth is from the sun has little to do with temperature differenciation or our climate. The Earth is actually closest to the Sun on January 3rd. (For all the info and easy diagrams click the link: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html) That for most of the population of Earth comes in the coldest period of the year (aka the northern hemisphere), so distance between Earth and Sun has very little impact on our climate. It's the tilt of our axist that gives us our seasons (note: the above link also goes into tilt of the axes as well). Which means during summer your half of the globe tilts towards the sun, and during winter your half of the globe tilts away from the sun. For the other side of the coin, Earth is at aphelion on July 4.

Counter point to Texans post

Orbit is elliptical, but barely. A difference of only 5 million km at perihelion and aphelion. When we are talking ~150 million miles this is negligible. Your link mentions that it serves to moderate northern hemishpere temperatures, which is true but it does so only slightly, but it is not the primary influence on temperature. It acts in concert with the tilt, but the tilt is the primary influencing factor. (angle of suns rays + distance travelled through the atmosphere, are the major issues why tilt changes temperature.)

As for tilt, the Earth does wobble, but it takes thousands (maybe it was hundreds, but a long time nonetheless) of years for its tilt to change. So, as far as we're concerned the tilt is always ~23.5º. If it weren't how would you take into account hours of sun variation throughout the year? In the same way, this causes seasonal variation.