The Skeptical Environmentalist on Global warming

silverharp

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2007-1103-2.mp3



interview with Bjorn Lomborg , interesting enough, basically argues against the current response to global warming



book blurb

A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

Scofflaw

Given the hysteria that greeted The Skeptical Environmentalist, I would imagine that the book will probably get talked about alright...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

haven't read the book, but I've seen a few interviews and he's always spoken the most sense out of all the guests on each show.

ircoha

silverharp wrote: »

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2007-1103-2.mp3



interview with Bjorn Lomborg , interesting enough, basically argues against the current response to global warming



book blurb

A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years.by which time it will be too late Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria this will become an issue once GW brings the mossies to large parts of Europe and the USand HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. Do we really want to save millions in our lifetime: the planet is over popped at present and these millions will, in large measure, be saved in areas where they dont have enough feed to food them so the risks of mass migration, along will serious social unrest and war will be even more of a problem. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent. Meaningful dissent has been stifled through political correctness gone wrong: just look at what Kenny did to Myers re immigration

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic[ where is the evidence of panic: mankind does not give a damn about GW, except as a dinnerparty talking point in the more affluent societies between the lines of coke, before the conversation shifts to the 'drug problem' :mad:] is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time a bold opinion indeed.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

exactly my point...

octo

Lomborg presents himself as the calm voice of rational reason. I've read both his books. His arguments against investing in global warming prevention are based on an assumption of ever-increasing economic growth. The damage from climate change won't kick in for a couple of generations (he believes) so why spend money now? Because by that time, we'll be so much richer we'll be much better able to deal with it.

He believes his analysis is correct.

The IPCC on the other hand, have done a survey of all the economic cost-benefit analyses available on this issue and concluded that in fact it is worth spending money on. Who do you believe?

Of course, all the right-wing neocons love Lomborg. He presents very good reasons for doing precisely nothing about climate change, which is just what they want to hear.

;)

fits

octo wrote: »

The IPCC on the other hand, have done a survey of all the economic cost-benefit analyses available on this issue and concluded that in fact it is worth spending money on. Who do you believe?

Of course, all the right-wing neocons love Lomborg. He presents very good reasons for doing precisely nothing about climate change, which is just what they want to hear.

;)

Anyone interested in the topic should go to this lecture, I believe he'll be going through the cost benefit analyses..

Topic 2: Time for action? Options to address climate change
Speaker: Dr Bert Metz, Environmental Assessment Agency,
the Netherlands and Co-chair Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 3.

Date: Tuesday, 27th November, 2007
Venue: Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square Dublin 2

The phrase 'spending money to stop global warming' is misleading anyway. Any action we take now, will mitigate global warming at best. However there is a big difference between 3C warming and 6C warming.

bonkey

ircoha wrote: »

Meaningful dissent has been stifled through political correctness gone wrong: just look at what Kenny did to Myers re immigration

What Kenny did to Myers re immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with Global Warming.

Having said that...

The likes of Lomborg or Dyson never cease to amaze me.

They offer intelligent critique. They challenge the mainstream opinion. Their opinions are widely reported. They garner adherents and thus foster discussion. When they say something significant enough, they typically receive a measured response from scientists who disagree, explaining why they are wrong. This discussion often goes into a to-and-fro of response and counter, with both sides explaining why the rationale behind the reasoning of the other is flawed, incomplete, or downright wrong....the stuff that scientific discourse is made of.

And having done all of this, time and time again...they claim that rationale dialoge and meaningful dissent are stifled...despite their own voices being proof that such a claim is false.

If you take 100 people who opposed the current mainstream on Global Warming, each one of them will be convinced that theirs is the correct and rational position to take. Some will deny the earth is getting warmer at all. Others will admit it is, but deny that there's anything unusual about it. Yet another group will admit that it is happening, it is happening unusually quickly, but will refuse point-blank to accept that CO2 levels have anything to do with it. There'll be some who'll accept everythign up to and including CO2 levels, but refuse to accept that mankind has any meaningful impact on the CO2 levels.

At this stage, I'd guess I've covered in excess of 95 of the 100 critics....and all of these arguments will meet the type of stifling that Dyson and Lomborg complain about.

Then you will have that small percentage who either argue that its not important what is causing GW, or who accept that its man, but who have a radically different view on what we should do about it. Surprising though it may seem, this level of debate is rarely stifled....there's just very little of it out there.

So seriously....lets distinguish between dissent and meaningful dissent, between dialogue and grandstanding. There aren't many people saying what Lomborg is saying...that's why you don't hear them very often. Its not because they're stifled...its because they're drowned out by other forms of dissenting voices.

What is clear from both Dyson's comments earlier this year, and from Lomborg's here is that both fundamentally accept that GW is occurring and that a response is needed. If everyone was at that point, I think you'd find far far more rational discourse. You can't talk about a solution until you agree on the problem.

djpbarry

octo wrote: »

The IPCC on the other hand, have done a survey of all the economic cost-benefit analyses available on this issue and concluded that in fact it is worth spending money on. Who do you believe?

You believe the scientists. Lomborg is not a scientist and he has deliberately misrepresented data in The Skeptical Environmentalist, which was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) for:

1. Fabrication of data
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation)
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions
5. Plagiarism
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

He escaped any formal charges on the basis that he has no formal scientific training. It would appear that this guy is little better than Martin Durkin.

bonkey wrote: »

And having done all of this, time and time again...they claim that rationale dialoge and meaningful dissent are stifled...despite their own voices being proof that such a claim is false.

Good point. The problem is people like Lomborg cannot find any scientists to support their position and so they claim they are being hushed.

octo

djpbarry wrote: »

You believe the scientists. Lomborg is not a scientist and he has deliberately misrepresented data in The Skeptical Environmentalist, which was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) for:

1. Fabrication of data
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation)
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions
5. Plagiarism
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results

He escaped any formal charges on the basis that he has no formal scientific training. It would appear that this guy is little better than Martin Durkin.

Good point. The problem is people like Lomborg cannot find any scientists to support their position and so they claim they are being hushed.

Good points, I'm not sure how he manages to maintain such a high profile. Although I wouldn't agree that Durkin and Lomborg are the same. Durkin is just a cowboy profiteer. See a good video rebuke of his 'documentary' by a scientist here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=the+scam+of+the+great&total=282&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Knowing that there isn't a single scientific paper in a respected journal of note that refutes global climate change, Lomborg wisely accepts the scientific findings of the IPCC regarding climate predictions. However his tactic is to minimise their authority, minimise the potential consequences of climate change and maximise the costs of attempting to mitigate. Most people in the climate field are against him, including the IPCC who have undertaken their own studies on this. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

But he uses academic language and is obviously not a complete eccentric like the others, and he does make some good points.

silverharp

One very obvious question that comes to mind is , will any of the proposed methods of reducing emissions leave fossil fuels in the ground that would otherwise have been produced? If the answer is no then all the demand side measures are the equivalent of moving chess peaces around the board. If for example airlines manage to increase fuel efficiency by 20%, the fuel saved will simply be used by the next marginal buyer.

cavedave

One very obvious question that comes to mind is , will any of the proposed methods of reducing emissions leave fossil fuels in the ground that would otherwise have been produced? If the answer is no then all the demand side measures are the equivalent of moving chess peaces around the board. If for example airlines manage to increase fuel efficiency by 20%, the fuel saved will simply be used by the next marginal buyer.

True but more relevant to another trend "can we stop global warming" say. I also read The oil drum. Maybe we should form a group where we can smoke pipes and scoff at how much cleverer we are then everyone else?

silverharp

cavedave wrote: »

True but more relevant to another trend "can we stop global warming" say. I also read The oil drum. Maybe we should form a group where we can smoke pipes and scoff at how much cleverer we are then everyone else?

It’s not about being smarter then everyone else, but anyone that takes Peak Oil seriously will tend to look at government plans thought that prism. The assumptions underlying Kyoto etc is that energy production will increase at at 3%- 5% per year for the next 30 years and the measures being suggested will try to mitigate the effects of this. I believe this assumption is false and that global energy output will start decreasing within the next decade, this scenario would surely ride a coach and horses though any plans laid out byTPTB. That article on the oil drum is just another reworking of Jevon’s paradox which is also true.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

I believe this assumption is false and that global energy output will start decreasing within the next decade

Extremely unlikely. The only thing that will cause global energy output to decline would be an oil crisis.

cavedave

Peak oil theory says that is pretty much what will happen. Perhaps rather then a crisis a slow decline but with much the same result.

It is a fair problem with the theory of manmade climate change, and one I heard when i first heard of the "greenhouse effect" in 1988 "By the time global warming caused by burning oil becomes a problem we will be running out of oil"

djpbarry

cavedave wrote: »

Peak oil theory says that is pretty much what will happen. Perhaps rather then a crisis a slow decline but with much the same result.

But at this point, there is no indication that a "slow decline" will occur. Demand is rising and suppliers are struggling to meet it, hence prices are rising. I think what is far more likely to occur is a sharp drop in supply some time in the (relatively) near future.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

But at this point, there is no indication that a "slow decline" will occur. Demand is rising and suppliers are struggling to meet it, hence prices are rising. I think what is far more likely to occur is a sharp drop in supply some time in the (relatively) near future.

Out of curiosity out did you go from it is unlikey that total energy will drop in the near future to there will likely sharp decline rates in the near future?

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

Out of curiosity out did you go from it is unlikey that total energy will drop in the near future to there will likely sharp decline rates in the near future?

Global energy demand is showing no sign of declining any time soon. This is putting pressure on fuel supply, oil in particular. Although it is difficult to estimate exactly how much oil is left in the world (OPEC don't really want us to know), it is unlikely that production can be increased much further beyond current levels. There will soon come a point where demand will exceed maximum supply (if that point has not already been reached), i.e. peak oil. With energy demand increasing and supply hitting a maximum the only possible outcome is a sharp decline in oil supply (as we pass the peak) and a huge increase in energy costs (since there is nothing to fill the hole), resulting in an energy crisis.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

Global energy demand is showing no sign of declining any time soon. This is putting pressure on fuel supply, oil in particular. Although it is difficult to estimate exactly how much oil is left in the world (OPEC don't really want us to know), it is unlikely that production can be increased much further beyond current levels. There will soon come a point where demand will exceed maximum supply (if that point has not already been reached), i.e. peak oil. With energy demand increasing and supply hitting a maximum the only possible outcome is a sharp decline in oil supply (as we pass the peak) and a huge increase in energy costs (since there is nothing to fill the hole), resulting in an energy crisis.

I understand that but your earlier post at 10.52 you wrote

Quote - Extremely unlikely. The only thing that will cause global energy output to decline would be an oil crisis.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

I understand that but your earlier post at 10.52 you wrote

Quote - Extremely unlikely. The only thing that will cause global energy output to decline would be an oil crisis.

Yes, I did. Global energy output would have to decline given the lack of fuel.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

Good point. The problem is people like Lomborg cannot find any scientists to support their position and so they claim they are being hushed.

Is there an element though in the scientific community that they know where their bread is buttered either that there is little gov. money available if you disagree with the conventional wisdom or that scientists are afraid of losing thier jobs or being passed over for promotion.

fits

silverharp wrote: »

Is there an element though in the scientific community that they know where their bread is buttered either that there is little gov. money available if you disagree with the conventional wisdom or that scientists are afraid of losing thier jobs or being passed over for promotion.

Perhaps the first point has truth in it, but I'd disagree with your second point.
Scientists *love* finding holes in other people's arguments.

To have such a consensus as there is on global warming is astonishing in my view.

Anyone who could poke a hole or disprove global warming would be on to a massive winner financially. The oil companies and the US and Saudi Arabia would love such a scientist, but such a scientist does not exist....

bonkey

fits wrote: »

Perhaps the first point has truth in it, but I'd disagree with your second point.
Scientists *love* finding holes in other people's arguments.

Indeed. If you were to ask a scientist if they would rather discover a new theory or disprove an existing one, many would (I believe) opt for the latter as the preferable accomplishment.

The problem as I see it is that there is a degree of confusion (some deliberate, some unintentional) in terms of what people mean when they talk about stifling discussion.

The scientific discourse regarding the existence and ultimate cause of global warming is effectively over. Thats not to say it can't be reopened (if someone disproves the current theory), but scientist's aren't generally interested much more in discussing whether or not it might be solar cycles (for example).

If someone can show that there is a model which is as good or better then the existing models, which makes fewer assumptions, which shows solar cycles - or anything else for that matter - to be a better fit, then it will be looked at. I've followed more than one link from various threads here where exactly this has happened, and the model has been critiqued, and the critique basically explains why the model is flawed. Discussion over, especially when the retort from the champion of the model rapidly becomes "no, its not flawed, you're just too partisan/stupid/blind to see that its right" (as I've also seen occur).

The mainstream and political discourse is slowly catching up to the same point. The fringe-theories get more airing, at both ends of the scale. Cataclysmic doom that will destroy civilisation within a generation gets just as much of a hearing as "its all just the same as what's gone on before, and it'll blow over in <something close to my lifetime>, mark my words".

Once we get beyond that...once we get to accepting that yes, this is happening, and yes, we accept why its happening...then we can get on to having a meaningful discourse about what to do.

Personally, I think mitigation is a good step to take until that time, especially when its mitigation which offers economic opportunity, rather than as a cost. Its hard to argue against something offering a cleaner environment and which keeps the capitalists happy (unless you're the capitalist selling the dirty alternative, of course).

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

Is there an element though in the scientific community that they know where their bread is buttered either that there is little gov. money available if you disagree with the conventional wisdom or that scientists are afraid of losing thier jobs or being passed over for promotion.

If anything, there is far more funding available (from the private sector) to "scientists" intent on disproving the global warming theory. Governments (Irish in particular) really don't provide all that much funding for research.

octo

Yes, I did. Global energy output would have to decline given the lack of fuel.

This is where Lomoborg, his free-market champion Julian Simon, and others of their ilk would disagree with you. They would see the markets as providing alternatives. ie, the rising price of oil (due to peak oil) would incentivise innovation to produce cost-efficient alternatives.

I do think they might have a point, and it's bound to happen on some scale. But it's quite difficult to predict how far that substitutibility can extend. For instance, they have started on the tar sands of Alberta, where hereto fore they were considered uneconomical. Heinberg and the other peak oil people maybe over-stating their point.

Difficult to say for certain though, isn't it? The economy is as finely balanced as an eco-system. I think we can predict the natural world much more accurately than human behaviour.

Lennoxschips

Modern economics and capitalism are based on cheap fossil fuels. A market system designed based on the premise of an abundance of cheap energy isn't going to work when that energy isn't abundant anymore.

The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.

cavedave

Modern economics and capitalism are based on cheap fossil fuels. A market system designed based on the premise of an abundance of cheap energy isn't going to work when that energy isn't abundant anymore.

The Malthusians have been saying the sky is falling for some time now. If cheap renewable energy is found is it capitalism a go go then?

The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.

Did the Easter Islanders have a market economy? Please give a reference to this belief.

octo

The Malthusians have been saying the sky is falling for some time now.

The solar panel article looks very interesting, thanks. I hope the neo-Malthusians are wrong too, but to refuse to look at the evidence assumes a kind of religious belief in Mankind's ability to outwit nature, doesn't it? Past performance is not a guide to future performance, as they say.

How would a fully functioning free market have helped, say, Ireland through the potato famine?

silverharp

octo wrote: »

they have started on the tar sands of Alberta, where hereto fore they were considered uneconomical. Heinberg and the other peak oil people maybe over-stating their point.

the best quote I have heard about the tar sands is that it is like having 100million in the bank but being only able to withdraw 100K a year.

cavedave

How would a fully functioning free market have helped, say, Ireland through the potato famine?

Yes Ireland was a net exporter of food at the time. If the Irish had been in a capitalist system rather then one of serfdom they could easily have feed themselves.

but to refuse to look at the evidence assumes a kind of religious belief in Mankind's ability to outwit nature

Someone who refuses to look at evidence would be some sort of fundamentalist , yes

octo

Someone who refuses to look at evidence would be some sort of fundamentalist , yes

There have been numerous examples over history of famines and population collapses due to ecological overshoot and over-exploitation of the ecological basis on which we all depend. The path of human progress is not a straight line pointing upwards. Read Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' for some examples. To think that an ideal market system will somehow automatically place humans beyond the reach of natural laws is magical thinking.

Here's some evidence of past collapse:

Population trends, 200 CE to 1700 CE.
Source: Ponting, C. (1994). A Green History of the World. Penguin Books, London.



Now your 'evidence' would be, what, exactly?

cavedave

To think that an ideal market system will somehow automatically place humans beyond the reach of natural laws is magical thinking.

It would not. What natural laws are you talking about? If you mean the growth and collapse of population due to lack of resources the declining population of native western Europeans indicates that humans are not solely ruled by the (more resources == more children) equation that is used to model animal populations.

Now your 'evidence' would be, what, exactly?

Evidence for what? Evidence that Ireland during the famine was a virtually feudal society and that it was a net exporter of food?

Ireland remained a net exporter of food even during the blight.

the English and Anglo-Irish families who owned most of the land, and had more or less limitless power over their tenants.

Lennoxschips

cavedave wrote: »

Did the Easter Islanders have a market economy? Please give a reference to this belief.

I don't know. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have saved them.

The market system is but a means, a tool if you will, for distributing commodities. When oil runs out we are talking about a commodity running out.

cavedave

I don't know. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have saved them.

I was about to go off on a tragedy of the commons lecture but then I read this
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf

You are correct being the biggest tree hugger in history would not have saved you from genocidal maniacs

Lennoxschips

I'm saying that when a commodity runs out it runs out, no matter what system you use; market economy, socialism, communism, fascism, genocidal maniacism, whatever.

cavedave

I'm saying that when a commodity runs out it runs out, no matter what system you use; market economy, socialism, communism, fascism, genocidal maniacism, whatever.

That is not what you said you said "didn't" not "wouldn't"

The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.

The paper cited shows that Easter Island did not undergo ecocide but genocide so your original quote now says in effect

"Doing something they did not do didn't save the people of Easter Island from something that did not kill them"

Which is not a great argument.

Lennoxschips

didn't/wouldn't... there's no need to be pedantic. capitalism wouldn't have/ didn't save them at the time

The paper cited shows that Easter Island did not undergo ecocide but genocide so your original quote now says in effect

"Doing something they did not do didn't save the people of Easter Island from something that did not kill them"

That's quite a sweeping straw man conclusion.

casey212

Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. For example the polar bear on the block of melted ice??? Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.

BULLER

casey212 wrote: »

Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. .

Yet only a small minority have the intellegence to properly comprehend it... your post proves that.

(the thousand year natural cycles have been broken by human activity)

casey212

Explain yourself further. Also, when you mention intelligence, use the correct spelling.

cavedave

The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.

That's quite a sweeping straw man conclusion.

I am putting forward your argument as
"capitalism which the easter islanders were using did not protect the easter islanders from ecocide" is this not your argument?

didn't/wouldn't... there's no need to be pedantic. capitalism wouldn't have/ didn't save them at the time

It is not pedantic to say that people dying from something else were not doomed by an economic system they were not using.

BULLER

casey212 wrote: »

Explain yourself further. Also, when you mention intelligence, use the correct spelling.

:rolleyes: That was a bit ironic wasn't it... I can't right now, I'll reply to you're pm when I have time to go into further detail. There's no point skimming the surface...

djpbarry

casey212 wrote: »

The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news.

Yes, they do, which is presumably why you believe that global warming is totally "natural", despite the mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

casey212 wrote: »

Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.

That won't be much good to them when there's no ice left:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html

casey212

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, they do, which is presumably why you believe that global warming is totally "natural", despite the mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

That won't be much good to them when there's no ice left:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html

Have you ever heard the saying:

"who ever pays the piper calls the tune"

National Geographic channel is run by the CIA. IPPC is funded by the United Nations, just do some research into that organisation.

Are you aware that virtually all scientists survive on governmental/foundation grants, be they university based or institutional. What scientist is going to speak out against his master?????

Also I have never seen any reports on the news where humans were not labelled as the problem, as a result I would refute your first assumption. I am open to correction on this point as I don't watch much of the stuff, yet I can assure you none of my opinions are formulated without extensive research into all areas of the specific topic.

octo

casey212 wrote: »

Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. For example the polar bear on the block of melted ice??? Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.

You're right, of course the earth goes go through natural cycles. But its called man-made climate change because it's above and beyond these natural cycles.

I hope they're still teaching this in schools.

AngryHippie

Who pays Al Gore then ?
Or is he like a charity worker for the global warming conspiracy ?
In Fairness, The ice cores do paint a pretty damning picture of the causes of climate change with regard to human behavior, Of course you are entitled not to believe it, but your reasons are unscientific and bad philosophy to say the least.
There is a mental tool called Occams Razor, It states that if there is an apparent obvious cause of a result, It is more than likely the cause. You have to look for evidence to the contrary, as it will be of more value than the torrent of speculation that you will find supporting it. Evidence to the contrary of the global warming theories is pretty thin on the ground. Give me something concrete and I will consider it.

casey212

AngryHippie wrote: »

your reasons are unscientific and bad philosophy to say the least.

QUOTE]

"Reasons unscientific and bad philosophy" Could you point out where have I introduced science and philosophy???? Also refute my arguments as they are presented.

Study the history of Al Gore, it makes interesting reading. The United Nations are funding the global warming farce. In the early 1970's it was decided that a new method was required to enhance more control over the people.

You might also want to consider the source of all data/images which are presented.

casey212

octo wrote: »

You're right, of course the earth goes go through natural cycles. But its called man-made climate change because it's above and beyond these natural cycles.

I hope they're still teaching this in schools.

They no longer teach it in schools. Not from the early 60's. People fail to appreciate the long term planning and precision of government. Believe me they are not the bunch of idiots presented by the media. The vast majority of the brightest minds today are involved in one way or another with government.

bonkey

casey212 wrote: »

The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

Geosyncline theory was taught in universities until the 1960s.

Additionally, you'll struggle to find a pro-global-warming scientist who denies that the earth goes through natural cycles.

Which specific natural cycles do you believe are at play here, that are known and understood but have not been included in the current best-of-breed climatological models?

casey212

bonkey wrote: »

Geosyncline theory was taught in universities until the 1960s.

Additionally, you'll struggle to find a pro-global-warming scientist who denies that the earth goes through natural cycles.

Which specific natural cycles do you believe are at play here, that are known and understood but have not been included in the current best-of-breed climatological models?

Geosyncline theory?? This is a concept, how does it relate to global warming?
How about this for an uncomplicated cycle (maybe you only believe difficult theory's made with authorative tones by people in white coats), the earth does not circle the sun in a uniform fashion. Its distance from and path around the sun varies according to various solar patterns. Also there is a vast amount of geothermic activity under the oceans at present, the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's.

The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke, CO2 is vital, try to live without is and see how far you get.

cavedave

Also there is a vast amount of geothermic activity under the oceans at present, the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's.

That is very interesting do you have a reference?

The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke, CO2 is vital, try to live without is and see how far you get.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas so it certainly can have an effect on global warming. It is vital and you might think plants would absorb more when it was available but I am told the main constraint on plant growth is not co2 but water and soil nutrients.

Just because something is vital does not mean you can take any amount of it. Drinking too much water or taking in oxygen at too high a partial pressure will kill you.