Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

[johnallg]

I'm interested to know why you believe climate change promoters are less reliable than climate change refuters. You've mentioned money grabbing in a few posts, but the petroleum, fossil fuel, and manufacturing industries have magnitudes more moulah than the enviromental science industry. I believe there's far more cash to be had by refuting climate change, because changing habits to cater for climate change will actually cost every industry trillions and trillions, rather than make money. If someone were to be 'paid for positive comments' as you've suggested, wouldn't they be more likely paid by the highest bidder, rather than by the side who is saying you'll lose money if you listen to us, but please listen anyway?

How do you personally decide which side is correct?

How long is the book, and have you read it yourself?
If I were to read only one skeptic book is this the right one?
Will reading this book make me a better person?

What are you afraid of? Why mock? I thought we were discussing here....

[johnallg]

Now back to the environment and discussing the implications of funding environmental research...

Ok Bails, serious mode engaged:

The funding arrangements of any research are likely to draw someone's ire. Whether it's big business or mad environmentalists that are perceived to be behind the scenes, or evil tobacco interests or interfering government busy-bodies, the wonderful diversity of human culture guarantees that at least one of us will find such funding objectionable, no matter how philanthropic and ethical the donor. I don't doubt that there are some shady things happening out there, but I'd like to evaluate the research at least a little rather than tossing it straight in the bin because I object to the ideology or structure of the funding.

The funding accusations and name-calling games that are played can become distractions from the main argument. When criticism is levelled at the messenger or their backers rather than the merit of the message, it has very little intellectual value, if any. The important questions, like "is the data sound?", "does the data support the findings?", "is the methodology appropriate?" and "are the basic assumptions valid?" get lost as fingers are pointed and insults are traded.

Mind you, keeping and eye out for bias is an important part of critical reading. I just don't believe it should predominate our analysis and prejudice our conclusions.

Thank you.

[winston]

Great posts John. There's always, yet another viewpoint and yours is just as compelling as the others that were expressed with so much supporting data and feeling.

[wayang]

Kent...again, you're bringing us opinions from places like "alabamawx.com". I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that Alabama is not a bastion of the Scientific Method and Critical Thought. Many of your supplied quotations seem bent on wrongly characterizing the science that supports 'manmade' factors as causes of global climate change...calling any branch of Science "a new religion" or "almost like a religion" is misunderstanding the whole idea of science completely. Science and Religion have always found themselves in opposition to each other...

Science, being dedicated to making statements that can be proven true or false, limits itself to discussions of physical reality. If something can be proven untrue, scientists are obliged to reject it. Religion, on the other hand, contains statements and 'beliefs' that cannot be proven true or false, and don't need to be. If it can be proven 'scientifically' that the earth is billions of years old, some religions are perfectly able to ignore the physical reality and cling to an alternate figure of, for example, 6,000 years. These two human establishments will never be in exact accord with one another, and it's a big mistake to confuse one with the other.

The fact that 650 'scientists' are supposed 'human-caused global warming skeptics' is in keeping with science's long and turbulent history of disagreement and rancor. The fact that they are in disagreement with many more thousands of scientists worldwide should give the rest of us pause.

If a person subscribes to a particular religious belief that teaches tha a 'man-like', patriarchal God has made this world and put humans at the top of all of the rest of it, it would certainly seem to be 'blasphemous' to think that the 'Crown Of Creation' could be capable of screwing up the whole world and becoming a scourge on the rest of the life here. A scientist has no reason to view things that way, and no reason to reject out of hand any evidence that may point to negative impacts and effects brought about by human activity.

[nukebass]

If it can be proven 'scientifically' that the earth is billions of years old, some religions are perfectly able to ignore the physical reality and cling to an alternate figure of, for example, 6,000 years. These two human establishments will never be in exact accord with one another, and it's a big mistake to confuse one with the other.

There are also scientists who disagree with the current accepted age of the earth, too. Evolutionary theory has big holes, but is currently held to be scientific fact (the biggest hole is that it violates the provable second law of thermodynamics - that, without external energy provided, the entropy (disorder) of a closed system will always increase.) I don't see why religion and science have to be at odds. I think they should go hand in hand, especially in today's society where information is readily distributed. That's just my opinion, though.

Let's also keep in mind that the general European scientific consensus around 1000 years ago was that the earth was flat and the center of the universe (the Greeks knew differently 1000 years prior...). Einstein's theory of relativity, which is held today as a truth, was not accepted by the scientific community of the day. He won the Nobel Prize for his work on the Photo Electric Effect, which was much less revolutionary than the theory of relativity. Who knows what new truths will come out in the future of physics that negates what we consider truths today.

I also don't think it is fair to criticize the "deniers" because they have "ties to the ----- industry." Global Warming scientists have ties to the "Government handout" industry, but people don't go after them as much. Private industry funds research, too, and its results should be considered just as valid.

We watched the front fell off video a couple of years ago at work and we laughed for days about,especially the part where he says "it's been towed out of the environment." Classic comedy.

[brammy]

Good point, John. The overall trend is that developed countries have made great strides in recent decades in reducing pollution and cleaning land/water/air. That cant be said for many developing countries (and I include India and China in that catagory).

[deaconblues]

(the biggest hole is that it violates the provable second law of thermodynamics - that, without external energy provided, the entropy (disorder) of a closed system will always increase.)

Not to change the subject, but the Earth is not a closed system, as it's powered by the Sun.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[brammy]

Not to change the subject, but the Earth is not a closed system, as it's powered by the Sun.

This is so very true. There's that pesky Mr Sun poking his nose into things again.

[nukebass]

The closed system all depends on where you draw your box (I would include the sun...) The sun doesn't cause evolution, though. You can leave a species in the sunlight for thousands of years and it won't evolve into something else because of sunlight. It might get a sunburn ...

My point was more directed towards being careful of taking conventional scientific thought as the actual truth. I am, in general, a skeptic by nature, though. Naturally, I try to find fault in logic and that's just my perspective. (not to say my logic is any better. My wife can attest to that, I'm sure )

[wayang]

Ryan, you make some excellent points...and no less an authority than Isaac Asimov has expressed wonder over the fact that life itself seems to contradict the basic premise of the Second Law, as, in the case of our own biosphere and presumably others that may exist, things are certainly moving in the direction of less rather than more entropy. This is a most intriguing course of events.

Science, of course, knows about itself that it doesn't know everything. This, again, sets it in opposition to any epistomology that contends that everything not only can be known, but already is.

As far as 'funding' goes, we might accord to government-sponsored science some chance that a window is thereby provided through which accurate science might go forward unimpeded. When Big Capital funds science, I'm afraid the results have to inspire considerable skepticism, since there's obviously so much profit at stake.

If "developed countries have made great strides in recent decades in reducing pollution and cleaning land/water/air", that should be balanced against the fact that they are the countries responsible for the the majority of the damage done so far. Of course, all nations need to be called to task regarding environmental damage, but shouldn't the repairs begin where the crimes were first committed?

[johnallg]

(the biggest hole is that it violates the provable second law of thermodynamics - that, without external energy provided, the entropy (disorder) of a closed system will always increase.)

Not to change the subject, but the Earth is not a closed system, as it's powered by the Sun.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Beat me to it, Dan. Again I point to the sunspot 11 year cycles and the relationship the number of sunspots (remember, for 2 years there have been very few sunspots, even for being at the low of the 11 year cycle) have on our planet's temperatures.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124551.htm for one read on this.

[johnallg]

If "developed countries have made great strides in recent decades in reducing pollution and cleaning land/water/air", that should be balanced against the fact that they are the countries responsible for the the majority of the damage done so far. Of course, all nations need to be called to task regarding environmental damage, but shouldn't the repairs begin where the crimes were first committed?

As one instance of that not working as you would like, back in the 80s when the developed countries were banning/regulating the use of CFCs, North America and Europe had strict regulations implemented in the use of CFCs for circuit board cleaning. While these countries developed different cleaning materials and methods that were environmentally safe, third world manufacturing was still using OPEN AIR baths of bubbling CFCs to immerse the manufactured circuit boards in for cleaning after soldering. This allowed the CFCs to evaporate into the air at alarming rates. Weren't we just talking about the ozone hole???

[bails]

Beat me to it, Dan. Again I point to the sunspot 11 year cycles and the relationship the number of sunspots (remember, for 2 years there have been very few sunspots, even for being at the low of the 11 year cycle) have on our planet's temperatures.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124551.htm for one read on this.

I have read the article (as have I read many of the links provided in this thread), but I can't see how it relates to man-made climate change one way or the other. Can someone please explain how this article relates to man-made climate change?

According to one of the experts listed in Kent's book:

"Since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming." (Solanki, S. 2004, "How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?". Max Planck Society.)

[johnallg]

Mark, I am saying any possible (and I'm not conceding any point on man-made change) man-made change would be vastly overwhelmed by natural influences on the climate of the earth. Secondly, we are at the low point of the current cycle, and on top of that experiencing a 2+ year major reduction of sunspot activity and that would point to a COOLING of the climate.

Also, carbon dioxide is such a tiny part of the atmosphere - the real influence is water vapor. Do you remember the 3 to 5 degree temperature changes for the 3 days all airplanes were grounded right after 9/11 over here? There is climactic influence. Google it.

[brammy]

What continues to astonish me is that Global Warming devotees and other Al Gore disciple view the notion that mankind may NOT be the thing responsible for temperature changes here on Earth as BAD NEWS.

But perhaps I'm not all that astonished. There is a segment of today's population who view mankind as "the human pestilence" that the Earth should rid itself of, just as a dog might shake off fleas. It's a form of self-loathing. It seeks to blame mankind for all the worlds ills.... and if the facts dont want to conform to the mania, then facts be damned.

I once had a discussion with someone firmly entrenched in this type of thinking. I posed a hypothetical question..... "you hold in your hand a test tube in which contains the cure for AIDS. What do you do with it?" His answer was that he would destroy the test tube.



Unfortunately, that person is not alone in his sick thinking.