(Guest Blogger- Richard)
For 100s of millions of years the Earth's temperature has fluctuated through a range of about five degrees Celsius. The fluctuations are a function of Sol's varying output, our planet's orbital and axial relationship to the sun, cosmic radiation (alters our cloud cover) and shifting ocean currents. At present the Earth is on the crest of one of these cycles.
In the past (early dinosaur era) the atmosphere has had CO2 levels exceeding 5%. CO2 has presently recently risen from 0.027% to almost 0.04%, which is nothing. 98% of the greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour) are not man-made, so environmentalists would have us all suffer economically and even die. (This is because cars are so light --to save gas and CO2 emissions-- that the occupants are more likely to die in accidents --over 20,000 deaths/yr and 200,000 more serious injuries/yr in the USA alone).
I believe more CO2 would cause a greening of our planet on a grand scale. Even at 0.04% CO2 most plants are struggling to get CO2 for photosynthesis. A doubling of CO2 is known to double fruit crop output, and would likely do similar wonders for most other plant species.
Plants would even survive better in dry regions because they could close their stomata (leaf pores) to conserve water and get enough CO2 to continue photosynthesizing.
As for humans the changes in environment would be so gradual that lifetimes would come and go, so no one will drown or dramatically lose property. In most cases, if someone finds the regional climate to be too hot or wet, they can do what people already do for all sorts of reasons: move a few hundred miles to a place they prefer.
In many ways Environmentalism is a religion (incl. the present anthropogenic global warming furor). It is a belief system that uses snippets of (scientific) fact but only if it suits Environmentalist beliefs*. It even has its goddess, "Gaia", that many believe in either implicitly (revering Nature, over Mankind) or explicitly.
*While Al Gore tells us about melting glaciers, neither he nor the media tell you that Antarctica's Ice Cap is the thickest it has ever been. The breaking off of the Ross Ice Shelf was more likely caused by increased flow of glacier ice off the continent, than by any melting.
53 comments:
Want to know if global warming is real? Just follow the insurance industry. When they refuse to provide homeowners insurance policies to people who live near coastlines because of rising sea levels and increased storm activity.
As for Antarctica, you might want to read this, this, and this.
Because of its location, Antarctica cannot be used as a barometer as to whether or not the Earth is warming. Increased precipitation from global warming might in fact be a factor in thickening ice sheets in Antarctica. Plus the thickening is only in part of Antarctica, in other parts of the continent that ice is retreating. Then you have the dramatic recession of the polar ice and the glaciers in the northern hemisphere.
You can dispute the causes if you want, but the fact is undeniable that our planet is heating up.
Tommy, that is exactly what richardo said. It is alway doing one of three things. Heating, cooling, maintaining.
Don't hang you hat of might, and IF.
The insurance argument is ridiculous. Just because they believe the oceans will rise enough to noticeably flood land, which I strongly doubt, hardly makes them a valid source of knowledge.
In fact, such a rate of ocean rise is impossible even with Al Goron's most extreme claims. Things just won't melt that fast. The rate of tectonic plate movement can reach 6cm a year, whereas worst-case scenario (read Goron panicking) change in ocean level is less than half that.
No one has cried out about global property loss because a coastline was sinking. But as soon as all mankind can be blamed, well, the cockroaches come out of the woodwork to engage in finger pointing... almost exclusively at the best economies, cultures and societies on earth. What they really hate is humanity, particularly successful humanity and particularly those in business, who pretty well make everything else possible. In sick envy, the cockroaches hate the good because it's good!
As for Antarctica, I can't see where I said it was a "barometer" of global warming. I question the veracity of information provided by the sites you linked to. Science magazine is notoriously dishonest in its reporting of environmental issues, and has been caught red-handed more than once. They are no longer credible, but are echoed all over the place by journalists writing for the man on the street. None of either group is very scientific or independently critical of whatever claims are made. Nor are insurers, in this respect.
Please note that I have not denied that the planet is heating up... I think I quite plainly said that: "At present the Earth is on the crest of one of these cycles." It is a natural event that if man is in any way a factor it is laughably trivial!
In fact the planet has been much warmer than this in the past.
Reg Golb is bang on with the idea of not hanging "your hat on might and if". Don't hang it on "could" either. Over twenty years ago I noticed how those three words proliferated among environmentalist prophecies of doom. What is really bad about it is that they say those words to cover their asses, and then go on as if their "might", "could", and "if" claims were definitive truths. It is very, very, very bad reasoning... that is, it is not reason at all. It is irrational scaremongering of the chicken little type.
I think it a bit of global warming would be a wonderful thing especially if it comes with increased CO2! As I said, it will make a better world agriculturally, even in the hotter regions which will only be a few degrees warmer on average, which means they will still have cool days too. People just don't seem to get that last point, duh!
I don't give a damn if glaciers retreat, even a lot. It exposes more minerals for human use.
Richard: I'm having a similar arguement which a bunch of fellow technicians who totally "believe" in a man made global warming and that we must reduce emissions. Whenever I ask for evidence or suggest CO2 could be an asset or that "SOLdidit"... I'm a heathen. It certainly is being treated like a religion in some cases.
Some time ago in a comment to a post you quoted data that suggessted humans are only responsible for 5% of the total emissions (if I'm not mistaken).
Can you give me a reliable source of this data?
It would seem a little irrational to create such a big hoo haa over such a small percentage.
I enjoyed both your last posts by the way :)
Here is the information Protium requested. For the record, it took me about one minute to obtain over the Internet, and about four minutes to place here. Please see my next comment as to why I pointed that out.
From Answers.com
[Please note the wide range of percentages for each gas... those indicate the Confidence Limits of about the average, which would be half way between. Those indicate the statistical uncertainty of the role of each gases greenhouse effect.]
__________
"The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[2][3] Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases)."
__________
This next excerpt is the information Protium requested.
__________
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
"This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
"Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."
The kind of information that Protium requested is widely available and very easy to find. That fact speaks to the devastating irrationality and intellectual irresponsibility of most human beings, including many high 'ranking' scientists, and entire professional agencies, that are supposed to know what they are doing.
There are two issues at stake. The first and less important one is scientific fact. Of much greater importance are the moral consequences, which I touch on last.
Both failures are a function of modern education which has taught children to blindly trust authority, which they continue to do into adulthood. They are then willing to act politically (if only through voting), socially (by parroting the arguments they received from other parrots), and some through out and out activism.
Independent thought is as rare as hen's teeth. Whenever anything is taken seriously on a cultural level, each individual in that culture has an enormous personal responsibility to investigate alternative views thoroughly. Otherwise they, and all those they drag down with them, will pay the price.
This is a matter of self-preservation, and the one tool we all have that is meant for that purpose is our Faculty of Reason. Yet we are taught to doubt it, and to trust 'others' such as the 'authorities' or the 'collective' (sometimes referred to as the consensus). Yet both those sources are nothing more than other individual minds that are no less capable of error than your own mind used well.
What is the cost to us of acting on global warming (and environmentalism) if they are wrong?
The cost is our happiness, our health and even our lives.
Every extra cent taken out of our economy because of these errors hurts somebody, and you can bet it will be the poor who will suffer first.
Environmentalism and related fearmongering has already blocked the production of nuclear energy (the cheapest and safest source of electrical power ever devised). This in itself has put increased pressure on fossil fuel use (no irony there), and made electrical energy more expensive, which ramifies throughout the economy.
Environmentalism has banned all sorts of very useful agricultural chemicals that made food cheaper. By far the most evil banning is that of DDT. I think I have mentioned before that worldwide malarial deaths declined to 55 in 1972 when DDT was banned. Now 1.5 million people, mostly children, die of malaria. On that count alone, Environmentalism has been more murderous than Hitler's concentration camps.
The list of human harm done by Environmentalism is in fact very long already, from phony Northern Spotted Owl protection to wetland preservation to how often one may water one's lawn. It is only going to get worse if better minds don't speak up.
There is another moral cost. Because our culture no longer respects the individual right to liberty and property, so called solutions to environmental problems are expected to arise by government legislation. That legislation will always constitute an attack on, and limitation of, individuals' rights to liberty and property. This has already taken place on an enormous scale.
America is no longer a government of the people by the people, but a government of regularly elected dictatorial groups who sell favors to some people for votes. This then leads to legislation for the favored people that disadvantages the rest. America and the Western World is steadily and obviously decaying into political group warfare. This warfare is breaking out more and more as activists find that violent demonstration successfully intimidates weak kneed leaders, who try to dance between extreme positions.
Meanwhile, us peaceful folk, trying to get on with our own lives and not asking for favors, become the ultimate victims.
Take responsibility for knowing. If you never studied science you can still read and understand science... just look up the words as you go. It will be slow at first but it will get you there.
Always doubt popular fads and arguments. Nowadays they are almost certain to be the opposite of the truth. If two sides of an argument go on and on and on, probably both sides are wrong. So go and find out the truth. Do not settle at all until you have done your due diligence, and even then stay alert for that essential argument that makes or breaks a case.
Thanks Richard.
I thought this post would cause more response!!
Here's Al Gore's latest blathering as he collected his Nobel.....carbon credits anyone??
"Without realising it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself," Mr Gore said. "It is time to make peace with the planet.
"The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed," Mr Gore said at Oslo's City Hall to the applause of about 1000 guests, including Norway's King Harald and Queen Sonja.
"The earth has a fever. And the fever is rising," he said, adding the world every day pumps out 70 million tonnes of global-warming pollution - mainly carbon dioxide.
Instead of the "nuclear winter" scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer", he said.
Mr Gore, for whom the Nobel prize marked a dramatic comeback from defeat to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election, said earlier generations had the courage to save civilisation when leaders found the right words in the 11th hour.
"Once again it is the 11th hour," said Gore, who has said he will give his part of the $US1.5 million ($1.72 million) prize to climate work.
"We must quickly mobilise our civilisation with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilised for war," he said, crediting the generation that defeated fascism around the world in the 1940s.
*BUMP*
Australia is going with Kyoto. Is this a ticket to charge us more for "energy", charge higher taxes, and for poorer nations to blame us for rising water levels and demand compensation?
How much effect could we have on global warming if human emissions completely stopped today?
Hi Protium,
fiery brought your comment to my attention... I thought the thread had ended.
In parts of N. America, any Black person who works, speaks and dresses in a manner typical of Caucasian workers, is referred to as an "Oreo" by other Blacks.
Environmentalists are largely "watermelons", green on the outside but socialist red on the inside. This means they seek to drag down the tall poppies, redistribute wealth, coupled with reducing or eliminating the technological basis by which one group or another may have any advantage.
So, I would respond with an unequivocal "yes". Agreement with Kyoto is giving them (the UN) "a ticket to charge us more for "energy", charge higher taxes, and for poorer nations to blame us for rising water levels and demand compensation." The exact means by which these things will be done can vary.
"How much effect could we have on global warming if human emissions completely stopped today?"
'Maybe' there would be a slight cooling over the ensuing few years. On the other hand there would be a considerable production of CO2 from decaying human bodies, 6.5 billion dead as a result of not breathing - there is an ongoing source of man-made CO2!
There is plenty of evidence evidence that the slight changes in CO2 or temperature are completely within normal ranges experience by the planet over the last 100,000 years. In 100 years we will be looked on as blithering idiots.
A recent development (my bolding):
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
Just a thought...
It seems to me that the patrons of this site would oppose a society void of free will and innovation (especially Richard, who is ever so paranoid by the thought of a "socialist" conspiracy among environmentalists). But if this is true, then why is the creator of this page so opposed to the idea of a God who reigns without tyrrany? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Anyway, my beef isn't with her, but rather with Richard himself (and by Richard, I’m really talking about the community of skeptics). Here is his argument for all those who haven't yet been exposed to the rampant propaganda that comprises this site: We as an American people know that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and increasing levels of carbon dioxide. In addition to this, we know that humans deposit millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Why, then, are we to sit back and watch as temperatures continue to rise by our own doing? The answer is simple: Richard's pocket book takes priority over my well-being.
If I may, I'd like to make a comparison between Richard and the tobacco industry, seeing as Richard didn't hesitate in comparing myself and others to Nazi Germany. When researchers in the medical field became aware of the ill effects of smoking on the human body, the tobacco industry's first plan of action was to spread doubt in order to protect its profit margins. Richard is simply spreading doubt because of an inert fear that his business will suffer when carbon emissions become regulated by the government.
There is a reason why I am able to make my argument in two or three sentences when Richard takes two to three pages. He is grasping at straws and hoping to spread doubt by making staggering assumptions. Case in point: Richard claims that increased levels of CO2 will benefit agriculture, thus reducing world hunger. What he fails to realize is this: the world's number one food staple is rice. When nighttime temperatures rise, rice production falls dramatically. Richard can waste hundreds of words explaining why carbon dioxide may benefit agriculture, but hindering the production of the world's leading food staple still seems like an ominous thought to me. CO2 increases temperature, an increase in temperature reduces rice production, and less rice equates to more hungry people. One sentence, no assumptions, no biased sources, and no ulterior motives. How's that?
Now I'll let my thoughts settle upon some more of Richard's flawed logic. Firstly, he claims that human-induced global warming should not be feared simply because most people believe that it should be. I feel stupid just thinking of the simplicity of my rebuttal, so I'll let the readers dissect that statement on their own. Secondly, Richard says that the banning of DDT is responsible for the increase in deaths caused by malaria. What may be of interest here is that Richard says this as if there is no viable solution to the malaria problem. I can think of two right now: insect repellent and mosquito nets. But these would go against everything for which Richard stands. Any small donation to a third world country might lighten the contents of his pocket book, a cardinal sin as far as he is concerned (by this point, I think Richard has become symbolic of all those who refuse to listen to reason). Nonsense is their anthem and ignorance their excuse.
In his flawed assertions, Richard mentions a group of scientists opposed to what he calls "climate alarmism." Let me fall upon an anecdote in order to prove a point. In the first semester of my A.P. English Language class this year, we were made to write an essay concerning the many reasons behind obtaining a college degree. The most distinct reason in my mind came directly from a quote, one that I will have to paraphrase here on account of memory lapse. It went something like this: we seek higher education so that we can determine for ourselves whether or not a man is talking rot. How can we decide this? It's simple; we just have to look at the man's motivation. Is a study concerning global warming funded by Exxon Mobile really to be taken seriously? Richard knows that the only doubt among scientists comes from biased studies such as the above, and he also knows that the overwhelming majority of scientists still have no doubt that human activities are significantly impacting global warming. Once again, he is simply grasping at straws and remaining loyal to his bank account.
During my studies, I encountered another item of significance--deductive reasoning. Here's a piece of deductive reasoning that Richard might find interesting: Carbon dioxide increases the temperature of our planet. Humans input massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (about five percent of greenhouse gases--a conservative estimate to be sure--and an even larger percentage of CO2). If these two sentences are true (as if they can be disputed) then this must also be true: humans are increasing the temperature of our planet. There. I've constructed three sentences that prove a point, and I didn't have to make assumptions, manipulate statistics, or stretch the truth. I wonder whether Richard can do the same.
I hope this message gets posted. There are two sides to every argument, and I believe that it's undemocratic not to provide the public with both. But, as Richard wisely pointed out, a perpetual argument only detracts from the credibility of both sides. So, I hope to hear Richard's rebuttal, maybe give a response, and then be back in school following President's Day. Thanks for putting up with me, Richard.
Jason referenced someone who said motivation determines whether or not a man is "talking rot" is only exceeded in stupidity by those who believe him. If Hitler says 2+2=4, or that "a mob is easy to sway because they do not really think", we know his motivations are awful but his statements are correct. Of course, if you are playing the motivation card, what is the real motivation of the Environmentalists (more below).
"Richard knows that the only doubt among scientists comes from biased studies..., and he also knows that the overwhelming majority of scientists still have no doubt that human activities are significantly impacting global warming. "
Jason has been duped by his mentors. That statement is flatly and patently wrong. There are many many books and articles by reputable scientists that disagree with the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fad. At www.oism.org there is a petition signed by 17,500 scientists who doubt the AGW fad. That petition is many times larger than anything referred to by Al Gore, or the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (# of signees <2,500)
Jason's presentation of deductive reason is shockingly naive. He has yet to grasp that deductive reasoning depends first upon inductive reasoning from observed fact. On this particular point: there have been many occasions in geological history when temperature has dropped as CO2 has risen. The causal connection is not what recent correlations indicate. The principle in statistical analysis is: correlation is not causation. There are many other agents behind the Greenhouse Effect, and CO2 is only a miniscule factor in the moderation of atmospheric temperature. It is somewhere under 5%, and man's contribution is less than two percent.
To pass laws that destroy normal economic relationships and harm lives (especially the lives of the poor) is completely immoral, and is the single, best way to harm human inventiveness to deal with AGW. if real at all. It makes no difference, if GW matters at all, whether it is caused by humanity or not. The Global Warmers are wrong on every single count!
There may be two sides to every poorly understood argument. Both sides can be wrong or one side can be right. If one side is right, the other side(s) are wrong. There is a wealth of information showing the fallacy that is AGW.
Those things said, Jason has disagreed with me by making presumptions about my state of mind (paranoid, conspiracy fears) , about my apparently narrow or even evil motivations (my pocket book, my supposed alliance with big business), and my apparent lack of both factual knowledge (CO2 does so cause Global Warming!) and reasoning skills (like, maybe, Richard ought to discover deductive reasoning and stuff, ya know).
Jason, most people on this blog know that I have been a biologist, involved in research and in teaching, longer than you have been alive. They also know that one of the most important things to me is epistemology --the understanding of how Truth is achieved by man. I am affiliated with no company, and do not buy into conspiracy theories.
All I need to do is observe leading environmentalists to see that they are not interested in helping humanity. Any new advance that is first pronounced environmentally friendly, is soon denounced by environmentalists. This is most noticeable with windpower. Prince Philip, titular head of the WWF wants to return after his death as a virus to kill off humanity. Nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest method of producing energy, yet the Environmentalists oppose it.
Every solution to environmental problems is the curtailment of human activity, wealth and happiness. Environmentalism is not about saving the planet at all, its leaders' envy and resent successful men and desire to destroy them. It is hatred of the good (mankind) because it IS Good. Any honest mind that practices a little inductive reasoning: gathering the facts, looking at what is said, will soon find what I have said is blatantly evident.
Jason, your comment is littered with ad hominem, a logical fallacy that primarily exposes the nature of your own mind and (lack of) proper education. That approach to debate is precisely why I so vehemently ridicule academics and the ivory tower. You have been ripped off, and taught that the smattering they tell you is all you need to know. Few things are further from the truth.
I know whereof I speak. I have three University degrees. My third session, over which I had no choice) was the most shocking, as it revealed to me a phenomenal decline in academic professionalism since my first two degrees 15 years earlier.
I have learned far more outside of school than in it. In the present system the inmates are proudly running the asylum... and the whole point of asylums is to insulate its inmates from Reality.
Richard,
As the well-educated college graduate that you are, I am sure you realize that an ad hominem argument is one that attacks a singular personality by pointing out its faults. In my previous writing I explicitly stated that "Richard" was symbolic of all those who oppose global warming. Maybe upon earning your fourth college degree you'll finally know how to read carefully enough to understand your opponent's argument.
Concerning your petition, I have to question the "scientists" who are signing it. From what I saw, anyone with a solid background in science can sign it, which includes those working for the major corporations across the U.S. that would hate to see restrictions on carbon emissions. After all, the opening statement of the petition solely concerns treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, which we all know was pointedly rejected by big business. If you're searching for the Truth, Richard, then look no further than my last two sentences. If, however, you are simply looking to stir up controversy for your own enjoyment, then keep writing.
As promised, this will be my last comment. Do what you will with it, but please realize that the public will not be swayed by your extensive education, but rather by the validity of your argument.
Jason, describing someone as "symbolic" of a negative 'something' is to impugn their character and by extension their argument. Why else did you bring it up? That is, you DID use ad hominem, threw in unfounded accusations toward me. You are so sure of your view that anyone who disagrees with you must be some evil-doer --it WAS you who brought up the notion of conspiracies-- and now you are trying to weasel out of it.
Basically you have provided nothing thoughtful to the discussion, and have now stooped to intellectual dishonesty. Don't come back unless you have read a whole lot more widely and more critically and perhaps can offer a proper argument.
Richard's closing argument: Jason is a bully, so global warming can't be real. Touché, Robert.
My closing argument: There is an undeniable correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and rising temperatures that even Richard can't ignore.
Jason seem to say he's not coming back and then does.
Here are some elementary facts:
* ~65 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 5% of the atmosphere. The planet survived.
* Today's furor is over a rise from 0.027% to 0.031%. Those levels remain at 1/100th of past levels.
* Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often been *negatively* correlated... a very good case to argue that CO2 is not the super-efficient Greenhouse Gas it is claimed to be.
* Global temperatures have been cycling +/- 5 deg F for 800 million years. The cycles operate on at least three primary wavelengths based on the Earth's relation with the Sun: cyclic solar output, cyclic orbital shifting, and the cyclic precession of the Earth's axis of spin.
* Cosmic radiation dramatically effects cloud cover, affecting the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) and altering heat absorption.
* Recent changing temperatures of the Earth are well correlated with changes on both Mars and Venus, which 1) correlate with the aforementioned solar output and orbital variation data, and 2) no one seems to have been able to demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 levels on those planets are related to human industry!
* Ocean currents strongly affect how much heat from the Equator is dissipated into Polar waters. These have cycles that include complete collapses, which bring about ice ages.
*Read the second comment by me, Richard, on this page concerning water vapor.
* 'Scientists', even those at NASA, regularly select only that data that 'proves' their point... they are particularly busy at this mischief-with-reason* when Government Grant decisions are coming forth! (*Gore, "The Goron", writing on Reason is a self contradiction.)
* Since climate is not a "global" phenomenon, but is a *regional* phenomenon, humans can move a few hundred miles (as they commonly do anyway) to obtain the climate they prefer, if it bothers them so much. The same movements have been common to animals and plants for some two billion years.
* While it's pretty clear that CO2 levels have risen, and it may be true that those increases are anthropogenic, that alone in no way justifies a Chicken Little "sky is falling" reaction. The scariest *reasonable* warming scenarios, from the computer modelers will have a gradual impact over many decades. Humans will have lots of time to adjust.
* Passing laws to regulate human activity just because the global climate is warming by a degree is brutally fascist/socialist and an irrational rejection of individual rights and freedoms. Such regulation will offer little or none of the claimed benefits for society as a whole, and will do a great deal of harm, especially to the young and the poor.
I have posted quite a few facts on this blog already, and Jason can go and find them himself instead of playing his snotty-lurker games.
Jason, come back with something smart or get lost.
Dear Richard,
Stringing together an incoherent line of facts doesn't prove anything unless you draw a conclusion.
Even with this being said, any conclusion that could be drawn from your "elementary facts" probably wouldn't support your argument anyway.
Yes, you are correct that the planet survived increasing levels of CO2 65 million years ago, but you leave out an important point: the dinosaurs did not.
Yes, you are correct that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but you leave out an important point: carbon dioxide traps heat more efficiently than any of the greenhouse gases.
Yes, you are correct that humans could move to other regions of the world should the effects of global warming prove too harsh, but wouldn't a fascist government be the only kind to sit back and watch this relocation take place when it could have been prevented? I think so.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by over thirty five percent. I'm sure you of all people realize what a tiny fragment of geologic history is represented by this short period of time. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years. The first humans to walk the planet did so less than 100,000 years ago. We as a species have never withstood such a high concentration of carbon dioxide. Maybe we will adapt in the future; if we cannot, then I know who to blame. Are we going to be the next dinosaurs because of people like you? (please don't flatter yourself by calling this a scare tactic; it's a legitimate question and one for which I know that you cannot produce an adequate answer.)
Regardless of whether other factors affect the climate of our planet, anyone who can interpret a simple graph knows that carbon dioxide cannot be disregarded when it comes to climate change. "Correlation without causation" may be valid in some circumstances, but not when we are absolutely certain that carbon dioxide traps heat and does so as the principle greenhouse gas. (Please, Richard, until you can prove that this last sentence is not true, don't refute it in your arguments. I respect your intellect, but assumptions based on a desire to prove oneself correct don't serve much purpose in arguments such as this.)
Now I think it appropriate to compliment one of your more accurate assertions. Once again, you are correct; climate change is a regional phenomenon. But I'm sure you are also aware that, as local temperatures increase, more precipitation falls in irregular bursts (i.e. storms). As I recall, you claimed that global warming and increased CO2 would benefit agriculture. As for me, I would much rather grow corn in my home state of Indiana than in any state where rainfall is not predictably reliable. Don't worry, though. I'm sure it won't be too much of a burden on the economy to relocate half of the United States.
Farewell, Richard. You seem to find the coherence and cogency of my arguments upsetting, so I think it would be best if I stopped writing. Good luck finding the Truth.
Ha ha ha. Here comes the longest $%^&*( comment on the Atheist Homeschooler ever.
(Is there a character count cut off?)
I hope it offers value to those interested in this most important topic of our time!
Now that it's ready to put up, I see that it may not be as long as Johnny's awesome rant against biblical BS. Darn! :-)
Jason has provided some substance, of sorts. His 'substance' allows for explication of the kinds of errors and confusions that keep the Anthropogenic Global Warming adherents going with a faith matching that of cult members than is applicable to science and reason. So I will respond, ignoring the insults and innuendo that do nothing to further his claims. Italic text is his.
Stringing together an incoherent line of facts doesn't prove anything unless you draw a conclusion.
Even with this being said, any conclusion that could be drawn from your "elementary facts" probably wouldn't support your argument anyway..
Each one (where applicable) is, by itself, a refutation of supposed correlation between CO2 and planetary warning. Together they amount to more than that. The conclusion does not need to be stated to be grasped. So what does Jason mean by "probably" wouldn't support my arguments? Is that a blanket confession to having not understood them?
Yes, you are correct that the planet survived increasing levels of CO2 65 million years ago, but you leave out an important point: the dinosaurs did not.
You should also know that the dinosaurs benefited enormously from the plant growth of the time, and their extinction had nothing to do with CO2 --the most poplular extinction argument (which I do not fully accept) is the catastrophic meteor crash at the end of the dinosaurs' reign.
Yes, you are correct that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but you leave out an important point: carbon dioxide traps heat more efficiently than any of the greenhouse gases.
But not the thousands of times greater efficiency that would come close to supporting the CO2 argument.
Yes, you are correct that humans could move to other regions of the world should the effects of global warming prove too harsh, but wouldn't a fascist government be the only kind to sit back and watch this relocation take place when it could have been prevented? I think so.
Jason has completely dropped the context I provided for that statement. The "relocations" would be no more than the kind of moves most people do several times in their lives... a few hundred miles. Millions move farther than that, freely and happily to pursue personal goals and interests. Of course, quite a few millions would be very happy with the warmer weather, or happily find ways to live with it!
Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by over thirty five percent. I'm sure you of all people realize what a tiny fragment of geologic history is represented by this short period of time.
This is one of the more foolish envionmentalist arguments going, on two counts.
The first, is the misuse of percentages. If the murder rate in Toronto Canada for January 2007 was five people and the murder rate for January 2008 was eight people, the media reports it with headlines that say, "Murder Rate Up by 60%". In a city of three million people that means very little, but it sounds impressive. A 35% increase from CO2 concentrations of 0.027 % is diddly squat. Learn that.
The second is the misuse of extrapolation. Plot the height of a child as they grow from ages one through 14, and then extrapolate to the age of twenty-five. Do you think the adult will be over 12 feet tall? Probably not, In the case of the child, his genetics are designed to end the growth with in a certain range (pituitary and other glandular abnormalities notwithstanding). This is, entirely normal in biological systems and many others. E.g. similar 'projections' were made with HIV in America. By 2005 80% (from memory, so I might be a bit off), of Americans were expected to be infected with the virus. Oddly, it did not happen (see "The Myth of Heterosexual Aids" by Michael Fumento.) Similarly "The Population Bomb" (1968) by Paul R. Ehrlich and David Brower (environmental scaremongers) predicted World overpopulation and starvation by the 1980s. It didn't happen, although the same canard is still repeated. The book was once a big hit at the time but now its Amazon rating is one star and its sales ranking is near 700K! Such extraploations are not science, they are the nonsense that ensnares the illiterate &/or innumerate mind.
CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years. The first humans to walk the planet did so less than 100,000 years ago. We as a species have never withstood such a high concentration of carbon dioxide.
That does not mean that humans are going to suffer. Consider mouth to mouth resuscitation? The victim of suffocation or drowning receives the air of his rescuer after the rescuer has removed some of the oxygen and expelled his own CO2 into the air he blows into the victim's lungs. The victim receives air with a CO2 concentration that is 100 times atmospheric levels. But Jason, 100 times atmospheric CO2 is .03 x 100 = 3%, still less than the dinosaurs lived in. Granted, for the human, that level it is now approaching levels that might cause drowsiness,(~10%), Nonetheless it is still very very far above the CO2 levels that have environmentalists asking ordinary people to ruin their lives or flat-out die for the cause by using smaller more dangerous cars, paying outrageous gas prices and suffering everything else in an economy that is effected by such things.
Regardless of whether other factors affect the climate of our planet, anyone who can interpret a simple graph knows that carbon dioxide cannot be disregarded when it comes to climate change. "Correlation without causation" may be valid in some circumstances, but not when we are absolutely certain that carbon dioxide traps heat and does so as the principle greenhouse gas.
I have provided more than enough points to show that just because carbon dioxide traps heat by the greenhouse principle, in no way means this will occur to a degree that warrants curtailing human activity in any way, shape or form. One cannot isolate a fact and then act as if it dominates all other factors. One cannot live by facts out of context (known as factoids), because all knowledge is contextual. Jason and other global-warmer-types uncritically select facts that support their belief that the planet is going to hell and Man is the cause. That, in the end, is all they really want to hear. Persistence in that thinking approach amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal. To ignore context is to treat a fact as being divorced from, and superior to, reality.
There is a great deal involved in this issue. So much so, in fact, that BSc graduates who have studied in an Environmental Program are quite ill-equipped to judge the Global Warming issue adequately --especially because their professors are equally biased and ill-equipped.. Proper judgment requires a knowledge of biology, of statistical analysis, of computer modeling, of the ethics of political action, of the philosophy of science (enough to know how to reject the ideas of Karl Popper, which hamstrung much of modern science), and, above all of concept formation, induction & general reasoning skills including principles of logic. The last five items are rarely mentioned, let alone taught in University programs, as so few students believe they are a value!!
In sum, there is insufficient evidence to justify any political action against individual humans, singly or collectively, in order to mitigate global warming to whatever extent it is real.
There are many more arguments than those above, that cast further doubt on the environmentalists' claims. Fortunately, I was able to write this without having to do any research whatsoever, so it did not take long to respond. As I've said before, many arguments that negate the global warming screed can be found on the Internet in 10 minutes. Unfortunately, people continue to parrot the narrow and misleading arguments they have gleaned from newspapers, the odd academic, and environmental evangelists such as Al Gore and, in Canada, David Suzuki. Most of those people are seeking sales, social status and/or political power. (Jason suggested one should consider motivations. Have you done that, Jason?)
Unfortunately, leading environmental activists have discovered the same fact learned long ago by religious leaders: there is always an abundance of sheeple eager to join their cause if it is presented with the right amount of fear and guilt.
Richard-
As much as I dislike Jason and his type, I think you could be wrong about something. I googled some stuff about global warming and read something like carbon dioxide accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect. Is that true? I found it on the BBC's climate change page. One more thing. Jason said carbon dioxide increased by 35% since the Industrial Revolution. I thought there were already billions of tons of that stuff in the atmosphere. Wouldn't that be a lot more CO2? Thanks for your help.
Jason said....
As promised, this will be my last comment. Do what you will with it, but please realize that the public will not be swayed by your extensive education, but rather by the validity of your argument.
Tick tick tick tick.....only a couple of hours later......
Amazingly he said after that....
Richard's closing argument: Jason is a bully, so global warming can't be real. Touché, Robert.
Tick tick tick tick.....half an hour later....
Jason again a second time after his promise of a last statement makes yet another closing argument which he doesn't even back up...
My closing argument: There is an undeniable correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and rising temperatures that even Richard can't ignore.
Jeez jason your promises don't seem to hold much water do they, for heavens sake. Just a tip don't make a statement in your schoolwork then immediately contradict it, it won't do you any favours!!
At the end of yet another post, after the this is my last post post and my closing argument post.......
Farewell, Richard. You seem to find the coherence and cogency of my arguments upsetting, so I think it would be best if I stopped writing. Good luck finding the Truth.
Oh yes clearly you are more coherent and cogent because you said so!! Get real jason!!
What an arrogant stupid thing to say makes you look like a total git.
Richard said...
Now that it's ready to put up, I see that it may not be as long as Johnny's awesome rant against biblical BS. Darn! :-)
Awww Rich a lot of that was cut and paste so you by far have clocked up the most kb
Trevor H2O is by far and away the most abundant GH gas making up about 60% of the greenhouse gasses if I remember rightly, I was taught this at high school so well before AGW was even a glint in the activists eye. I think CO2 is more like 25%
"Awww Rich a lot of that was cut and paste so you by far have clocked up the most kb"
LOL. Do I say "thanks" to that? :-)
Jason should stick around, quietly though.
I doubt if he has the honesty or manhood to do so.
Even if I do disagree with him, I am glad that Jason stayed as long as he did. At least he had a point to make. Johnny didn't even answer my question. All he did was poke fun at Jason's eagerness to respond and Richard's ability to supply some facts. Maybe Richard can answer my question a little more neatly. Thanks in advance (and sorry if I've misjudged you, Johnny).
"Jason should stick around, quietly though."
How quietly, Richard?
I'm not sure that he has anything else to say.
After a staggering argument like Johnny's, I'm not sure if it's even possible for me to come back. His comment proves it; global warming is definitely a scare tactic.
For the record, Johhny, I find no shame in contradicting myself because of my writing. If there's something that needs to be said and no one else is willing to say it, then I will be the one to do so. I think what you are hoping for is a contradiction IN my writing, and one that isn't just seemingly so because of a failure to read properly.
For Richard: I hope that comment was both truthful and mannly enough for your liking.
Trevor, by "quietly" I just mean a lot less bombast an insult, and a bit more questioning and reasoning. of course a good dose of humor might really help, but I'm generally not well disposed to that myself.
Jason, apparently you didn't recognize that Johnny's "argument" was not about global warming. It was about the irrational & self-contradictory statements you may as to whether or not you're going to make more comment on this blog.
Trevor the above is what I meant by Jason being more quiet. All he is going to invite is ridicule, which he has already shown he deserves.
Consider, Jason says, I find no shame in contradicting myself.
A contradiction is that which is and which isn't at the same time. A is not A. E.g. Jason opposes global warming and the raping of small children, and supports global warming and the raping of small children, at the same time. He finds no shame in that.
A person who has no shame in contradicting himself is a hypocrite by definition. A hypocrite is necessarily dishonest, because he wants his cake and eat it too.
A criminal seeks to pretend unearned wealth is some matter of pride for him. Yet in not earning it, he has done neither the thought nor the work that created it. For him to say the wealth is his, is a contradiction.
Contradictions in a man's thinking and speaking are the hallmark of confusion. Contradictions promoted are the hallmark of a dishonest mind. It seeks to promote the unreal as real. If stealing material goods a crime, promoting contradictory ideas is intellectual equivalent.
Jason, your comment was not truthful, because it was feelings spilled with little attention to, or deliberate evasion of, the issue that was their source: Johnny's observation of your wavering integrity. That is your words/ideas and actions were contradictory. That is not Manly, though it seems to be acceptable in a lot of classrooms these days.
Jason and Trevor,
Welcome to my blog! Normally I am quicker to say a word of welcome to new people and less quick to condemn or criticize a new person. My...prejudice... is the newness of your profiles. You are either new to the blogging world or have created new personae for the purpose of posting on my blog. Which... is approximately 10 degrees short of disconcerting.
However, since you've both posted multiple times.... welcome! I hope you both will look around and comment on other posts that catch your fancy.
Trevor, I'm sorry I don't have the answer to your questions. All I could do is google the info. you seek and I won't insult you by copy/pasting instead of personalizing the info.
Jason, as a way of providing context for Johnny taking the piss and tick, tick, ticking you... We have had several people in the past start arguments, have several exchanges, get frustrated and then say "I'm not coming back". The funny part is watching them being unable to keep away and post several more times after making that claim.
No one is holding you (or them for that matter) to it, it's just funny when it happens. At least you had something manly to say when you came back!!! *snerk* :D
Jason thanks for the confirmation!
After a staggering argument like Johnny's, I'm not sure if it's even possible for me to come back. His comment proves it; global warming is definitely a scare tactic.
Way to put words into my mouth!! More assumptions as well I see, what makes you so sure I am a global warming skeptic? Paranoid? The point is jason that Richard's arguments are far, far more convincing than yours it doesn't make him right but it makes you look like a smug fool.
Could you kindly point out where my arguments about global warming are? I didn't think I had made any, any at all!! In fact I made no argument whatsoever about anything and you have the gall to talk about being able to read properly shit jason that really makes me chuckle.
My point (allbeit made in a smartarse way mainly because, jason between you and me, the way you blasted on here was as rude as all fuck. Making all sorts of wild assumptions about people you don't even know. And as for the very first bit that starts with the oh so christian...just a thought.....followed by a snide backhand comment about a god without tyranny and a oh but I'm not here to talk about that....don't fucking say it then dick!! I must say however that Fiery deals with that one beautifully :-)) is that you blatantly contradict yourself by not only saying but promising it would be you're last. Unbelievably you think it is ok to contradict yourself so much so you "put it on the record" that you are not ashamed to do so! Dude read what Richard said about being a hypocrite. You are not going to convince many by being one.
I think what you are hoping for is a contradiction IN my writing, and one that isn't just seemingly so because of a failure to read properly.
Jason I am not hoping for anything from you except for a little intellectual honesty if you are going to jump on here and give someone a spray it is very trollish!
All he did was poke fun at Jason's eagerness to respond
Trevor I am not opposed at all in someones genuine eagerness at discussing or outright arguing points but he was the one typing so why on earth did he even find it necessary to write promising it would be his last post. All it does is make me question the veracity of any of his other comments. Or did he accidently type that?
and Richard's ability to supply some facts.
Can't quite see where I said anything about Richard's facts, unless you are refering to me saying jason did not back up his "closing statement" but unwittingly Trevor you are right I want facts,which Richard provides doesn't he? (well at any rate figures that I can look up to see if they are facts) not hyperbole. Oh hang on jason does provide one accurate fact CO2 has risen about 35% since the 18th century after he asserts this nowhere does he provide anything that shows if there really is a correlation between CO2 levels and warming he just says that as "an American people" you know that there is! By making it sound like it is an obvious fact whithout showing us how, he does himself and us a disservice. In fact, Jason, you might find that according to Gore's ice core data CO2 increase lags by 800-1000 years behind temperature increase try here and here. I wonder if you can find anywhere where this is answered or explained? You seem to be more interested in besmirching Richard's character.
As far as judging me Trevor I don't really give a shit how you judge me until I see that you are not a troll yourself, for all I know you could be jason playing us off by being the "trolls advocate" it does seem suss that there has been nothing on this thread for ages then all of a sudden there are not one but two dudes who have mysteriously shown up at the same time with newly made blogger accounts?
Finally
Johnny didn't even answer my question.
Are you serious???? Lets have another look
You asked...
I googled some stuff about global warming and read something like carbon dioxide accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect. Is that true?
I responded....
Trevor H2O is by far and away the most abundant GH gas making up about 60% of the greenhouse gases .....I think CO2 is more like 25% As I say this was from memory from high school, I wonder if Richard has other figures.
Not withstanding the fact that if Water makes up 60% of the gases in the greenhouse effect then CO2 cannot be the same as we would have 120% of a maximum 100% without even considering other gasses like O3, N2O and CH4, but I also put in a figure for CO2. The BBC website was most likely talking about the "enhanced greenhouse effect". Which is where a lot of the contention raised by skeptics is about, the Earth has a normal greenhouse effect which makes it inhabitable. There are lots and lots of scientific sites that will give you all the answers you seek.
As for the second part of your question I genuinely thought it was rhetorical but if you need an answer....if there are billions of tonnes of co2 in the atmosphere and it has increased by 35% then there will be 35% more CO2. Surely you can find the actual figure and work it out! You can find out what happens to CO2 if you google "the carbon cycle"
Trevor, Fiery pointed out that I had not responded to your question of February 19, 2008 6:32 PM.
In fact I have. The particular comment was posted on December 9, 2007 9:40 AM This kind of information, refuting the unjustified conclusions drawn by non-scientific (i.e. irrational) thinking, is readily available. Indeed, that information was from no less common a source than Answers.com!!
Sadly, because truth is sacrificed for their dollar, such information is not presented by most media sources. The media are not about selling news, but about selling advertisements, period. Quite literally, "No news is good news", because good news rarely lines anyone's pockets. Nothing like a good "sky-is-falling" story to get the average man's attention.
Ironically, Jason needs his to heed his own advice "to check the motivations of their sources", more than most anyone on this blog.
I have also commented on global warming elsewhere here. There are many very reputable sources, with such cogent facts and logical conclusions, that scientists are now ABANDONING the IPCC!!
I do not mean this as a snub, but I really should not be spending time researching more facts on this issue just because someone asks. That should be their job & I am quite buried in related information already. That said, if someone comes up with truly new and apparently meaningful information or arguments, one might find me going to that source and figuring out what it really means.
Johnny-
I don't care to know how you feel about me. I am interested in your answers, though. Here's what I've gathered from them, but please tell me if I'm wrong. Carbon dioxide plays a large role in the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one for which humans are responsible. Doesn't that mean we truly are affecting the climate? Or is the enhanced greenhouse effect really not that important?
Hi Trevor,
Unless 'Jason' has finally organized his 'poop', your question is awesome. If you are Jason, then come clean, because you are still being dishonest by using two names for one 'angle' at this site.
I hope Johnny will answer in his own right. (I absolutely love that... "In his own right"... It says everything about the unique and sovereign individual that is "Johnny"!)
You asked,
"Carbon dioxide plays a large role in the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one for which humans are responsible. Doesn't that mean we truly are affecting the climate? Or, is the enhanced Greenhouse Effect really not that important?
Trevor, CO2 does NOT play as big a role as water vapor. CO2 is certainly produced by humans (and almost every other organism that lives after DARK), but the quantities are so very small when judged in relation to the
atmospheric, politically correct, Global Warming viewpoint.
Bottom Line: the impact of Human Industrial Activity is shockingly trivial compared to what the Global Warmers claim.
I forgot one thing. Just in case anyone tries to claim that the melting of permafrost doesn't account for the large increase in CO2 (even though it does), it should also be pointed out that higher temperatures increase the frequency and severity of forest fires. Complete combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, furthering the cycle of rising temperatures caused by increases in carbon dioxide levels.
Let me apologize. My original comment concerning this post wasn't published as I thought it was.
m glad that Johnny finally decided to include some facts about global warming in his writing. Carbon dioxide levels really do lag behind changes in temperature. Johnny is mistaken, however, if he believes that his information supports Richard's theory of "correlation without causation." Here's what is actually happening:
As carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation in our atmosphere, the temperature begins to rise. When the temperature rises, permafrost in the previously cooler regions of the world begins to melt. This releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere, making it seem as though increasing levels of carbon dioxide can be accredited to natural rises in temperature. In reality, it is the original increase in CO2 that begins the cycle.
As a former biology teacher, Richard can back me up on this (that is, he can back me up as long as he is able to get over all of my horrible, dishonest hypocrisy).
Also, please try not to curse in your comments, Johnny. Anyone can access this site, and I would hate to see a person stop reading because of profanity.
This is for Richard: I may be wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is that sensationalized journalism is responsible for the "exaggerations" concerning global warming. Take a look at the tabloids to find the fallacy in this hypothesis. A conspiracy theory sells a magazine just as well as a dooms-day prophecy, and not too many essayists are favoring the "global warming is a hoax" strategy for getting their work published. Maybe the editors don't think that people would be interested in one of the biggest conspiracies of all time, so they just aren't printing these essays. Or, maybe there are a few good men in the world who genuinely care about spreading the truth. Whichever it is, I appreciate the thought that not all people are concerned with factual information regarding global warming.
Maybe I should quit posting if I can't even do it right. If anyone is confused, the comment that was posted directly after Richard's was meant to be read after the comment that starts with "m" instead of "I'M."
Richard-
I hate to admitt it, but I did see "An Inconvenient Truth." In the movie, Gore made it seem as though the enhanced greenhouse effect was increasing CO2 levels at a pretty high rate, and his graph did show a really close relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. I don't think he made up his data, but now I'm not sure who to believe. Don't worry about answering (unless you want to do so). I think I'm done with this for now.
Jason said, Also, please try not to curse in your comments, Johnny. Anyone can access this site, and I would hate to see a person stop reading because of profanity.
Interesting.
Note how with just two sentences Jason reveals that he has read nothing else on this blog, knows nothing of the commenters here, and has no idea what I, Fiery, creator of this blog, have established for acceptable behavior by my guests.
I know there is a lot of past material to look through. And without a guide as to where to start, many just skip over it. Here are a few posts that will bring you up to speed on my blog and the wonderful community that we have here.
post 1
post 2
post 3
post 4
post 5
As to this being a public forum.
Not really. It's more like a private meeting taking place at a hotel conference room with the hallway door open. Sometimes passers-by poke their heads in, but for the most part, everyone who comments here followed me back from their blog where I commented initially.
And if a little bit of cursing... or a lot of cursing... or a shocking amount of creative cursing is enough to get a person's knickers in a twist, they should leave the GoogleSafeSearch maximum protection feature on by default.
Jason's Permafrost argument, and Trevor's question about Al Goron's CO2 & temperature correlation graph, exemplify environmentalism's fraudulent rationalizations.
A rationalization is a seemingly logical argument that ultimately leads to a faulty conclusion.
Rationalizations are arguments built by misuse or ignorance of context, of concepts, and of scattered facts. They can occur in error, but when information is used in a selective manner to ensure the conclusion desired, they become intellectual depravity.
When confronted by a person who grabs at scattered facts to support a conclusion, one can eventually see that the conclusion is what they most want to protect, regardless of truth. The recent scaremongering about thawing permafrost (see next comment) is just another example of environmentalists' rationalizing, to justify their desire to knock Mankind off its 'pedestal'.
Many people mistakenly believe the AGW theory because they trust the scientists and writers behind it, and the simple arguments make it all seem plausible. Others, want to believe it because they dislike big business, the rich, the powerful (individuals or nations). They don't dislike the big, rich and powerful because of the few that have done bad things, they dislike them because they are big, rich and powerful.
This is a function of the World's dominant moral view: altruism. Altruism holds up the poor, the damned, and the broken as those who truly deserve our love, care and effort. Its religious form presumes evil lurks in everyone from birth, by nature. By altruism, the bigger, the richer, the more powerful, and the more successful are not just undeserving, they are evil. Their destruction is seen as a good thing.
So it is with the eager, activist Environmentalists. Their target for destruction is Mankind, because Mankind is so successful.
* All living things use energy. Humans use the most. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of any major source of energy used by humans..
* All living things need food. Humans produce the most per individual. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of human food production.
* All living things produce harmful waste chemicals. Humans produce waste chemicals in great variety. Environmentalists seek to show the 'environmental harm' of any human waste chemical.
* All living things, as a species, procreate. Environmentalists seek show the 'environmental harm' of human procreation.
Serious environmentalists need climate change to be man-made, so they can use that fact to... knock Mankind off its 'pedestal'.
There is enough money in the movement for them to buy millions of hectares of land to build nature reserves, and to do a host of other pro-environment things.
Yet, where do they direct their efforts? ...towards legislation against our lifestyle, towards demonstrations and conferences against business and the free nations. They object to capitalist pollution, but could care less about the more severe communist pollution. They do not work for Nature, they use nature to work against Mankind.
The new perma-frost claims only serve enviro-frozen brains.
Consider the opening sentence of this article:
"Global warming gases trapped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thought and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb." I emphasized the usual scaremongering and 'maybe' terms that irresponsible writers use, and that abound in environmentalist literature. They have to use such terms to maintain the semblance of credibility, but then suggest their conclusions of catastrophe are absolute truth. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, big time.
The article goes on to say, "Warming already underway thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years."
This is a flat out lie, quietly overlooked by journalists and Global Warmers alike. About 1,000 years ago the Earth was dramatically warmer than it is today. Greenland really was green along its shores and in its valleys, as the Vikings discovered. Scotland had vineyards, no less. It's climate was like that of Southern France!
Scotland is on the same latitude as Hudson's Bay and the Alaskan 'Panhandle'. Scotland's northernmost islands are on the same latitude as the southernmost tip of Greenland.
Do these nitwits think the permafrost didn't thaw back then? Did the Polar Bears drown? Did the Earth turn into a dust-bowl? Do they think the glaciers were not melting? Where are the records of coastal cities drowning in 20 meters of water from rising ocean levels?
Perhaps, because they can't prove that warm spell was 'man-made', the Environmentalists don't want us to notice it.
Now however, if the Environmentalists can prove this warm spell is man-made, they will have an argument for us all to kill ourselves, or neuter ourselves like that idiot couple in the U.K.
Trevor, CO2 and temperature changes can be tracked back for millions of years.
The data repeatedly shows that CO2 follows temperature. That is, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, and temperature decline precedes CO2 decline.
If CO2 were a causal agent for global temperature increases, temperature would have to follow CO2, but it does not.
Al Gore's graph was charted so that the lag between temp and CO2 was not visible. The layout emphasized vertical shifts, downplaying horizontal relationships. The horizontal scale crowded many years together further masking horizontal relationships.
If anything, warming does cause an increase in CO2, but CO2 does not cause significant warming beyond that produced by the usual combined effects of the atmospheric 'greenhouse' gases.
No doubt worldwide decay (as per the permafrost argument) increases when things warm up and produces more CO2. Does it cause further warming on a scale that really matters? It is pretty clear that it does not.
I have no idea what Jason is on about, concerning conspiracy theories and tabloids. I made it clear I was talking about mainstream media, academics etc. I think it is also clear that I am not speaking of conspiracy so much as widespread unreason.
Oh... I just noticed that I missed bolding "researchers warn as part of emphasizing the journalistic, environmentalist, scaremongering. We could even bold "trigger", which brings up the death by gunshot mindset.
Half that sentence is unmitigated, alarmist BS! It tells us how to feel, and then the article supports only the feel, with a few factoids on methane.
If anyone decides to read anything that I've written, let it be this...
Fiery recently informed me that the general public rarely views this site. For this reason, I no longer feel obligated to continue writing. This response should do.
Of all Richard's comments on this site, only one made me question whether my argument might be in jeopardy. After a little research, however, I have discovered that this comment was an outright lie, or, as Richard might say, intellectual dishonesty.
Richard claims that water vapor is responsible for global warming, that carbon dioxide is insignificant. Here's why he is wrong:
Since the 1970's, despite an abundance of aerosols, sulfates, and other chemicals in the atmosphere that block sunlight, global temperatures have been on the rise. Why? It is because of an increase in the greenhouse effect. But water vapor is responsible for the greenhouse effect, right?, and water vapor levels in the atmosphere have remained stable. How can the planet be warming if water vapor isn't responsible? Obviously, it is true that water vapor levels haven't changed much in the last thirty years. As far as their effect on global warming, the claim that they are affecting the temperature of the earth more than any other gas is COMPLETELY FALSE. Since the 1970's, the only greenhouse gas that has seen a significant increase is carbon dioxide, an increase that is mainly attributed to human activity. It is, without a doubt, the main culprit behind the warming that has taken place in the last thirty years.
But what about the medieval warming period? Richard said that the high temperatures in that time period were caused by natural variations, and they were. But that is completely irrelevant to the current rise in temperature. Modern computer models have taken into account all of the natural causes mentioned by Richard earlier, and, when human activity was neglected, their data showed that the small warming during the 1930's--attributed to an influx in solar radiation--should have been followed by a period of cooling. But why wasn't it, Richard? Did the models fail to take into account some unknown factor, one of which only you are aware? I think not. If it weren't for the enhanced greenhouse effect, our planet's temperature would be on the decline. But, as it is, we have produced enough carbon dioxide to effectively alter the earth's climate.
How do you explain that, Richard? We know that human activity since the industrial revolution has increased carbon dioxide levels by nearly thirty five percent. Based on the above information, it is also clear that carbon dioxide IS affecting our climate in a big way, a big enough way even to counter the natural factors that should be sending the earth into a period of cooling. What can we conclude from all this? HUMANS ARE MOST DEFINITELY ALTERING THE EARTH'S CLIMATE.
Hide behind irrelevant facts and your own assumptions if you want, Richard, but I know one thing: just because Richard says that carbon dioxide doesn't matter does not mean that that statement is true; just because Richard hopes that carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming does not mean that it isn't. Keep spreading lies, Richard, but know this. Being stubborn for the sake of making mischief isn't progressive at all. You complain about those who you think are jealous of humanity's successes. If you want us to keep moving forward, then try to get in touch with reality. Everything you have said has included a hint of fact with a whole lot of manipulation and even more assumption (that is, everything about human-induced global warming). There's no denying it, Richard. We are causing the earth's temperature to rise (at an unnaturally high rate), and the only way this will stop is if those who share your opinions come to terms with reason.
Wait one minute, Richard. Before you claim that the rise in temperature over the last thirty years is trivial, consider this. It takes a massive input of energy to raise the temperature of the earth even one degree Celsius. It's almost unfathomable that humans could be able to do such a thing. And yet we have.
Jason, your third paragraph, about water vapor commits the Fallacy of Begging the Question. It presumes all global warming in the recent period is caused by CO2 from mankind, and simply rejects all the other known factors. In other words, it asks (begs) your opponent to accept your AGW premise (the 'question' at stake) and moves straight on to asking your opponent to accept other statements that do nothing to support the initial premise.
As for me lying... nowhere did I say water vapor concentration had changed (actually cosmic radiation does change cloud cover, which affects Earth's albedo). I did say it was the predominant greenhouse gas, on such a scale that human influence on the greenhouse effect is negligible. Thus you have screwed up reading, thinking and responding on the subject.
Computer models are not science, or even 'scientific'. They are **models** of what the model designers think... that is, they represent the existing beliefs of the modelers, because of the facts they choose to use. They do not use cosmic radiation, use not to use cloud cover at all, disregarded sunspot activity etc. They cannot backwards predict weather for the Globe --coming up with such wonders as a Saharan climate for the Southern U.K.! Garbage in - garbage out.
The warming period 1,000 years ago certainly does have relevance to the claim that the permafrost is going to cause a positive feedback that will greatly increase the rate of global warming. That feedback did not occur then, why should it occur now? To simply dismiss it as irrelevant is precisely the kind of unreason that allows all of this nonsense to spread to millions of people.
Once again, you have screwed up reading, thinking and responding on the subject. I think you knew that was what I said, but have not been able to maintain the train of thought involved.
Regulars at this blog might like to contrast Jason with a teenager, who can think and write effectively, and does so at his blog: Samnite Gladiator. He tends to post on political issues, but does have a post on Global Warming as the overblown issue it is (Part 1 starts beneath Part 2). He also has good comments on Torture, reads and discusses adult material on events such as those Bosnia, or the Muslim Jihad. He is not a waste of skin.
Richard, very nice job on your argument. Although I don't agree with it, I respect your view. I do have a few issues I'd like to clear up with you though. A: Nuclear energy isn't the safest energy source, but it is clean, I shall give you that. If you want me to back up this claim, just look at the Chernobyl incident. If we could find a way to make Nuclear energy safer, and find a safe way to dispose of the used energy source, then I could say that it is the safest and cleanest energy source.
B: Socialism isn't communism, just putting that out there. It angers me every time I hear/see someone saying that they're one and the same. Socialism is a government type in which the government runs a lot of programs using tax money, and taxing the wealthy, instead of giving them tax breaks because they can pay their bills and taxing the lower classes to compensate. Communism is when there is a small group of individuals who control most of the country's wealth while the others are forced to work.
If you want to continue the discussion on either of these, or anything mentioned in your post, hit me up on oneandnoone (AIM) or atheistrockstar (AIM).
Oneandnoone,
"Although I don't agree with it, I respect your view.
Respect my effort at a correct view, not the fact that I happen to have one!
Re: Chernobyl-
UNESCO conducted a thorough study of those exposed to the Chernobyl event. Cancer rates within a sixty mile radius were no different from those in the next 100 mile (to 160 mile) radius. The two-headed cow argument was a canard. Two-headed cows happen all over the world as a genetic abnormality... nothing to do with radiation from a nuclear plant.
Incredibly, the Canadian nuclear reactors are so safe, actuarially, that it would cost, not a million, but a BILLION dollars to make them safe enough to save one more life. It would only cost $10,000 to save a life on N. American roads, simply by better banking of the main route, or by adding effective barriers. It is only politically-correct-scaremongering that has a) required such absurd standards, and b) prevented nuclear energy from developing when it is actually the safest and most productive energy source, in the World.
As for disposal of left-over radiation; that same radiation came out of the ground! It was concentrated by special techiques (centrifuges etc); the concentrate was used in the reactors until it was sufficiently weak that it was no longer useful.
Upshot! There was less radiation once the ore was used, than there was before it was used. Granted, it is a rather more concentrated, but that is no issue. Bury it back in the ground it came from, say in mines that are sufficiently deep to not in any way reach surface well water; drop it in a tectonic subduction zone where it will be quickly buried in ocean sediments and carried to the radioactive core of the Earth. "Nuclear Waste" is a non-issue.
Did you know that the total radiation in spent coal matches that of the radiation in the concentrated spent-uranium from nuclear power plants?
Your understanding of the difference between socialism and communism is, perhaps innocently, terribly misguided.
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,” Los Angeles Times, Ayn Rand. Sept. 9, 1962..
There is no more justification for taxing the honest wealthy, than there is for taxing the poor. Both worked to produce their wealth. What the hell gives anyone, or any group, the right to take a citizen's personal effort (wealth) from them ...or from you?? Nothing.
Your AIM suggestion produced nothing, not even a profile. Besides, I am staying here.
Post a Comment