Year of Global Cooling

[Flying Crane]

Far too many of the proponents of global warming have vested interests in ensuring governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legislations, and/or are involved in businesses that profit from scaring people about global warming.

So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations? Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets? and how much do you feel they have to gain from it? Who gets rich off it?

From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Is ice melting in artic regions and glacial areas faster than it was say 10 years ago?

Have there been any weather pattern changes?

Are there greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was say 10 years ago?

If not then what is all teh hubbub about.

If so...why?

 

[FearlessFreep]

So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations? Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets? and how much do you feel they have to gain from it? Who gets rich off it?

Well if you are a proponent of policy change and the policy does indeed change in your favor than you gain an enormous influence in the direction of that policy, which is influence and power which is an asset of it's own, not to mention that you will get paid well to consult and advise on that new policy.

See 'ethanol fuel' as an example of people who have made a lot of money for 'environmentalism' of negligible real value.

From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.

True to a point. Some big industries will be indifferent. Auto makers will need to invest in new propulsion technologies but also make a lot of money during the transition as everybody has to exchange their gas guzzlers for.. something else. New energy means new infrastructure and those with experience in distribution could stand to make a lot of money if they can get in early on the development of that new infrastructure. Some companies in big industry could lose a *lot* of money; some could make a *lot more* money if they position themselves right.

It's not as simple as 'environmentalists are doing it for altruistic reasons and industry opposes it for greed' A lot of both on both sides

 

[Big Don]

And if they come up with different answers than you, that's okay?

So exactly whose pockets do you believe will get lined if the governments enact a whole slate of anti-global warming legistations? Who profits from this, in terms of cash in their pockets? and how much do you feel they have to gain from it? Who gets rich off it?

From the other side, it is clear that big industry such as the oil companys and the automobile and related industries stand to profit immensly from a policy of ignoring global warming.

People who work for the UN's IPCC would enjoy, and profit from, job security.
Umm, btw, when was the last time the UN was right about something BIG?
OH, that's right... NEVER...
Companies that sell carbon credits didn't even exist ten years ago... but, they sure are profiting from something...
Oh, and the OIL companies, they surely aren't giving jet fuel away...

Oil companies are the bogeymen of the age. Automobile companies will always make money, even if all they made were non-hybrid electrics, you know why? It beats walking.
I don't know that anyone has yet gotten rich from global warming fears, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
Who? Lots of people, does The Day After Tomorrow ring a bell? That was not a charitable endeavor, nor, are many of the books, DVD's etc about the "crisis" of global warming

 

[Xue Sheng]

Rant ahead:soapbox:

OK I have about had it AGAIN:flammad: in a thread on Global whatever you want to call it.And I don't know why I am even posting because likely it will make NO difference:hb:

People are arguing politics and business and the only SCIENCE being discussed at all is how many scientists does it take to declare it real or fake.

Sorry but it makes one heck of a lot more sense to me to look and the FACTS not argue if it is real or whose fault it is.

Is the planet warmer in areas that were previously colder? YES – a WHOLE lot of ice is melting

Is this going to have an effect on every single creature on the planet? YES – and before it is brought up that it is the cows fault, sheep’s fault a snow leopard names Murrays fault, not one of them can do a thing to make it better.

Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks

Does Al Gore Matter at all? NO – Al is a politician and film maker NOT a scientist and has done NO research himself into what is going on, he has asked those that have and although there are many truisms in his little film it is also sensationalized in areas to MAKE MONEY.

If my next door neighbor buys or sells his/her Hummer is it going to make a whip of difference? At this point NO – 1 less Hummer will make no difference and it sure ain’t likely that all the Hummer owners are going to turn them all in for a Prius. And the fact is some of them do actually NEED them. A Prius is no good in a blizzard and no good on a logging trail, sorry. And there will ALWAYS be a need for heavy equipment and rather large trucks so again it would be better to figure out how to make those MUCH more efficient instead of pointing the fickle finger of fault at any one of them.

For crying out loud why not figure out what is causing it and then figure out if we can fix it. If we can’t start getting vaccines for a whole lot of tropical diseases for areas that were previously to cold for them and figure out where your going to grow food that was once grown in areas that were perfect for growing food that will be to dry, to cold, to wet, or really to wet because they are UNDER WATER.
:disgust:

 

[michaeledward]

Umm, btw, when was the last time the UN was right about something BIG?
OH, that's right... NEVER...

One could look to Mohammed el Baradai's statements about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems to me that the IAEA was much more correct about that than, oh, the Entire Administration of George W. Bush.

How many Billions of Dollars a month would it take before that was "BIG"?

http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar

 

[Flying Crane]

Rant ahead:soapbox:

OK I have about had it AGAIN:flammad: in a thread on Global whatever you want to call it.And I don't know why I am even posting because likely it will make NO difference:hb:

People are arguing politics and business and the only SCIENCE being discussed at all is how many scientists does it take to declare it real or fake.

Sorry but it makes one heck of a lot more sense to me to look and the FACTS not argue if it is real or whose fault it is.

Is the planet warmer in areas that were previously colder? YES – a WHOLE lot of ice is melting

Is this going to have an effect on every single creature on the planet? YES – and before it is brought up that it is the cows fault, sheep’s fault a snow leopard names Murrays fault, not one of them can do a thing to make it better.

Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks

Does Al Gore Matter at all? NO – Al is a politician and film maker NOT a scientist and has done NO research himself into what is going on, he has asked those that have and although there are many truisms in his little film it is also sensationalized in areas to MAKE MONEY.

If my next door neighbor buys or sells his/her Hummer is it going to make a whip of difference? At this point NO – 1 less Hummer will make no difference and it sure ain’t likely that all the Hummer owners are going to turn them all in for a Prius. And the fact is some of them do actually NEED them. A Prius is no good in a blizzard and no good on a logging trail, sorry. And there will ALWAYS be a need for heavy equipment and rather large trucks so again it would be better to figure out how to make those MUCH more efficient instead of pointing the fickle finger of fault at any one of them.

For crying out loud why not figure out what is causing it and then figure out if we can fix it. If we can’t start getting vaccines for a whole lot of tropical diseases for areas that were previously to cold for them and figure out where your going to grow food that was once grown in areas that were perfect for growing food that will be to dry, to cold, to wet, or really to wet because they are UNDER WATER.
:disgust:

yup, this is really the meat of it all. None of the rest of this nonsensical back-and-forth means anything. The evidence for global warming is huge. Vast industries stand to make huge piles of money if global warming is ignored. other industries stand to make money if policies are enacted to fight global warming. Still others stand to make money either way. I guess I was trying to understand the thought process of those who want to discredit global warming because some individuals happen to be hypocritical or greedy, or whatever. Either way, it doesn't make global warming go away. It's very very real folks. The clock is ticking. Maybe we can still do something to head it off before it becomes truly catastrophic. Maybe it's already too late. I'm in favor of giving it a try.

 

[Ray]

It's very very real folks. The clock is ticking. Maybe we can still do something to head it off before it becomes truly catastrophic. Maybe it's already too late.

Malthius predicated a catastrophie, The US gov't made us (old people) climb under our desks and cover our heads in preparation for Soviet nukes, The hole in the ozone layer was going to kill me, red meat is going to kill me, the US economy will be destroyed if a (democrate/republican/other - pick one) gets in office, I have a heel spur and a messed up rotor-cuff, my hair is falling out, hair grows in the darndest places, I can't read without reading glasses....

And now I gotta worry that Iowa is going to turn into a tropical paradise during the winter?

 

[michaeledward]

I'm sorry, Ray, I thought you accused me of appealing to a higher authority. I know I asked to whom you thought I was appealing. But I seem to have missed your answer.

Can you shed some light?

 

[Big Don]

I'm sorry, Ray, I thought you accused me of appealing to a higher authority. I know I asked to whom you thought I was appealing. But I seem to have missed your answer.

Can you shed some light?

While I can't answer for Ray, it sure looks like you appeal to the (somewhat tenuous) authority of the scientists whose opinions and positions you agree with while completely discounting any other scientist's opinions

 

[michaeledward]

While I can't answer for Ray, it sure looks like you appeal to the (somewhat tenuous) authority of the scientists whose opinions and positions you agree with while completely discounting any other scientist's opinions

Big Don, we have seen, now, that you know how to use the quote system. Please find the argument on this thread where I appeal to an authority, quote it, and display it.

These fuzzy, ill-defined ideas that you hint at do not make for a clear discussion.

Can you please find one authority, one opinion or one scientist in this thread, whose opinion I agree with, whom I have sited as an authority and whose opinion agrees with my own, which I then suggested that you should accept my opinion because of his.

 

[Big Don]

Big Don, we have seen, now, that you know how to use the quote system. Please find the argument on this thread where I appeal to an authority, quote it, and display it.

These fuzzy, ill-defined ideas that you hint at do not make for a clear discussion.

Can you please find one authority, one opinion or one scientist in this thread, whose opinion I agree with, whom I have sited as an authority and whose opinion agrees with my own, which I then suggested that you should accept my opinion because of his.

How about here:

Having looked at the sponsor of this report, and finding it to be Senator Inhofe, I knew it could and should be dismissed. Senator Inhofe has an agenda he is pushing, and really it seems silly to follow a report that is an attempt to justify Senator Crazy as Nero's Horse.

But, I did just find this rebuttal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph...i_b_77945.html

In which you discount a report of 400 scientists and slander a US Senator, because they don't share the belief you do, then you appeal to the authority of a blogger on the Huffington Post, a place that is PROUD to be biased...
Or here:

If they are using reason. Of course.

Wherein you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't using reason.
Or in this post from a previous thread where you imply the source of funding makes science suspect, if the science disagrees with your worldview:

Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.

Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
Show me who is funding their research.

Show me the evidence that is contrary to their claims.
Show me where their funding is sourced.

But, you ARE willing to believe a list of people whose continued employment is tied directly to fear of global warming...

 

[Andrew Green]

Those 400 are a small minority compared to those that say it is a problem...

 

[elder999]

Those 400 are a small minority compared to those that say it is a problem...

And, as I said in this post , there's evidence that some of them are less than credible....

 

[FearlessFreep]

Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks

Actually, I believe it does. If you don't know whose 'fault' it is ,then you really don't know what's causing it. If you don't know what's causing it then you don't know why it's happening. If you don't know why it's happening then you really don't know how to change it.

... and attempting to change it without really understanding the cause can be maybe helpful, maybe useless, maybe harmful.


Science wants to be predictive. "Under these conditions, this happens" F=ma. Change the input quantitatively and you get an output that you can figure out ahead of time. Unfortunately, it isn't always that way. There's a lot we don't know, and a lot we do know but don't have the computational power to do much about. Predicting earthquakes and tornados and snowfall two weeks from now. Too many variables or not enough data to build a predictive model with much accuracy or confidence. Medicine is a good example. We know how many PSI it will take to break a human bone, yet we make guesses on colds.

So, like a detective, we gather empirical evidence when we can, and make hunches from the coincidental evidence. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong.

But sometimes we don't know the difference. By 'we' I mean all of us on the outside looking at scientists making declarations. Are they making a quantitative prediction, like the time of the next lunar eclipse? Or an educated guess base on circumstantial evidence and experience like next weekends weather? Most of us don't have the background or experience to always know the difference. And there are many who don't care and for their own motives will sell a hunch as a fact and a guess as a mathematical proof. That really doesn't help anyone in deciding policy and direction.

I admit that from what I've seen, I don't see the climatology around global warning is really at a place where deductions can be made. We can be at the point of saying "this has been happening for a hundred years and that has been also happening for a hundred years, therefore we believe they are connected, and therefore if this continues to happen, that will also continue to happen". We are not yet at the point of saying "this many tons of that material leads to these many degrees of change" or rate slopes plotted over time. We don't have qualitative equations with predictive power yet.

Which means we don't have equations yet that tell us what we can change, what we can't change, and how to go about it. Which is where we run into the "might as well do something, anything would help" issue.

If we don't have a quantitative cause-effect equation, then you don't know if you are, we are all doing enough. We all cut our 'carbon footprint' in half and we think "at least we've done something" but all we may have done is jiggled the needle a bit to stretch our extinction out by a decade, or a generation, or... who knows? So maybe my great-grandchild dies of old age but my great-great-grandchild does not and my great-great-great-grandchild is never born, but last week, someone bought a hybrid SUV and felt like they had done something but they did not do *nearly* enough. Or we missed something in our circumstantial correlation, and it turns out that changing from oil burning cars to electric cars really didn't change the situation; not enough to change the outcome. So doing something... did nothing. Which is why I compare 'carbon credits' to "I pay you not to piss in the lake, so I can piss in the lake... well how much piss in the lake is still safe for both of us to drink?"

Whatever we do will cost, I don't mean the extra cost of an electric car for a family of four. I'm talking about a third-world country that can't become a first world country because they can't afford the 'clean tech' to upgrade their energy infrastructures so their people struggle on without the basic infrastructure we take for granted. Lotta jobs, lotta lives will be affected negatively and permanently as we fight to save the planet. We'd better be sure we are right. We'd better be sure that we who are saying "sacrifices must be made" are willing to do little more that just lowering the temperature and putting on a sweater, considering what we will be asking of others.

We'd better be sure we are right. We could be at the point of realizing that washing hands between surgeries will prevent the spread of disease, or at the point where we are thinking leaches would be a pretty good idea. Back to the original issue, if we don't know who's fault it is then we really don't know the cause and we really don't know the solution.. and we may kill the patient with good intentions

Or we may be at the point of no-return. It may not be possible to change the outcome. Maybe we're not the cause, maybe we never really figure out the cause, maybe we don't really have us much power as we hope and therefore we don't have enough power to change the results. In which case we're beyond the point that anything we do will matter, in which case our focus should not be on stopping but but surviving it and adapting to it. Or by the time we reach the point of collectively realizing we can't stop it.. we will also have lost the time to learn to adapt.

So, unfortunately, I think we're at a point were we really don't know the cause.. not quantitatively, not predictably. So we don't really know how to change the situation enough to affect the outcome. So we don't know if anything we are doing is enough, or even the right thing to do, or maybe even damaging in the long run. And, unfortunately, by the time we know those answers, it may be too late. Then again, it may be too late today and we need to face this.

Or..in short. We don't have enough knowledge to act in wisdom, but we may not have the time to get that knowledge, either

In "To Build A Fire".. at what point and with what action or decision did the man condemn himself to death, and everything after that was just the actions of a dead man who didn't know it yet?

 

[michaeledward]

How about here:
In which you discount a report of 400 scientists and slander a US Senator, because they don't share the belief you do, then you appeal to the authority of a blogger on the Huffington Post, a place that is PROUD to be biased...
Or here:
Wherein you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't using reason.
Or in this post from a previous thread where you imply the source of funding makes science suspect, if the science disagrees with your worldview: But, you ARE willing to believe a list of people whose continued employment is tied directly to fear of global warming...

I am not appealing to the authority of a blogger on Huffington Post. I was linking to an article, which disputes, in a factual way, the evidence of the report to which you link. I am not citing the blogger as an authority. I am referencing his research into the claims made by the report you posited.

Is Ray Kurzweil an "Prominent Scientist" in the area of Global weather patterns. The factual answer is NO. Pointing out undisputable facts is not an appeal to authority; it is called evidence.

I certainly challenge the credibility of Senator Inhofe ... because his positions are widely acknowledged to be complete unfounded scientifically. Somebody has said, if it's true, it can't be slander. ... Well, Has Senator Inhofe held any meetings where scientists were called to present evidence?

If you don't understand what the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is, and you can't discern between evidence and an appeal to authority, you are not arguing with reason.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Does it matter one bit whose fault it is? NO, we are all in this together folks

Actually, I believe it does. If you don't know whose 'fault' it is ,then you really don't know what's causing it. If you don't know what's causing it then you don't know why it's happening. If you don't know why it's happening then you really don't know how to change it.

... and attempting to change it without really understanding the cause can be maybe helpful, maybe useless, maybe harmful.

First what does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust form US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2 and last Like I said :hb:

 

[FearlessFreep]

Like I said :hb:

I guess the point was missed... leaving me feeling like your little sign

Simply put, if you do not know the cause then you are just guessing at the solution...

Per your earlier example, if the cause is cows, then no amount of electric cars will make a difference.

We are all in this together, but how we all get out kinda depends on how we all got here in the first place. If we don't really know how we got here, we can't get out.

 

[Flying Crane]

And now I gotta worry that Iowa is going to turn into a tropical paradise during the winter?

yup, only it won't be paradise.

back in about 1994 the entire midwest suffered from a huge amount of rain and the Mississippi river jumped its banks up and down its length and washed away entire towns. I recall this because I am from Wisconsin, and I was in the process of preparing to move to California during this time.

At any rate, satellite photos of the region showed Iowa as being all but completely under water. The entire state looked like another one of the Great Lakes.

This is a more likely scenario than the cornfields turning into a tropical paradise.

 

[FearlessFreep]

First what does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust form US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2

I don't mean 'fault' by 'finding someone to blame' in some sorta vindication or moral sense. I mean 'fault' as in 'what got us here?'.

To expand. If the source of the CO2 is cows, then electric cars won't reduce the CO2 going into the air. If the source of the CO2 is US cars than closing CHinese industry won't solve the problem. If the source is *all three* then only treating *one* will probably not be enough, but if any of those is not the source in a significant way, then focusing effort in t hat direction will probably be a waste of resources.

If you don't know how it got there... then you don't know how to stop more from getting there. That's the 'fault' I think is important.