the Global Warming debate

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

[GaryC 7]

It's a bit peculiar that you would openly accept economic 'estimates' as legitimate, while easily dismissing scientific estimates on Global Warming as bunk. Secondly, if you going to talk about costs and trashing the economy, I think you're ignoring the bull in the china closet - Iraq. Comparitively speaking, would ratifying the Kyoto Protocol cost us any more than the war in Iraq? There are going to be intitial costs and growing pains of converting to alternative fuel sources, but you've got to see the long term benefit in doing so, both to our economy and our quality of life.

Yes, there is much debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs. When it comes to the environment though and our quality of life, how can we effectively compute that into a 'cost' factor? What price do we put on a pristine lake? Or an old growth forest? Working for a sustainable future is going to be a constant recalculation and analysis to allow economic growth while protecting our quality of life. It sounds like you agree to that notion.

But that only addresses your argument against public policy change.

I'd like for you to look at the OP of this thread and explain to me what part of that explanation of Global Warming do you dismiss as junk science? Scientific theory does not equate to junk science - that is simply ludicrous.

I just don't accept the whole pemise of humans causing climate change on a global scale. People see natural short term changes. A bad huricane here a warm summer there and declare that humans are destroying the planet. These things happen naturaly and have nothing to do with us. A scientist sees a trend over the last 20 years and declares that humans are causing it. But when you look at trends over thousands of years you see the same fluctuations without benefit of humans. It just does not wash. Then the polititions step in, take a flawed premise and start using it for their own political gains. That is where I really get steamed about it. Why would I accept an economic forcast over an unproven theory? Simple, economics are understandable. Global weather is not.

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Come on Fishdude. Your just trying to bait people with a statement like that. Think about it. Fuel efficent cars are in the oil companies best interest. They are already making record profits, but if we streach out the length of time they stay in business by using less in cars the longer they make those record profits. And I think you give oil compaines more influence than they have. An auto manufacturer is going to make a car people want to buy. If I had a choice between buying a car that got 30 mpg and the same size car that got 50 mpg I would buy the more efficient one.

[dalegg 143]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Come on Fishdude. Your just trying to bait people with a statement like that. Think about it. Fuel efficent cars are in the oil companies best interest. They are already making record profits, but if we streach out the length of time they stay in business by using less in cars the longer they make those record profits. And I think you give oil compaines more influence than they have. An auto manufacturer is going to make a car people want to buy. If I had a choice between buying a car that got 30 mpg and the same size car that got 50 mpg I would buy the more efficient one.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a bit peculiar that you would openly accept economic 'estimates' as legitimate, while easily dismissing scientific estimates on Global Warming as bunk. Secondly, if you going to talk about costs and trashing the economy, I think you're ignoring the bull in the china closet - Iraq. Comparitively speaking, would ratifying the Kyoto Protocol cost us any more than the war in Iraq? There are going to be intitial costs and growing pains of converting to alternative fuel sources, but you've got to see the long term benefit in doing so, both to our economy and our quality of life.

Yes, there is much debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs. When it comes to the environment though and our quality of life, how can we effectively compute that into a 'cost' factor? What price do we put on a pristine lake? Or an old growth forest? Working for a sustainable future is going to be a constant recalculation and analysis to allow economic growth while protecting our quality of life. It sounds like you agree to that notion.

But that only addresses your argument against public policy change.

I'd like for you to look at the OP of this thread and explain to me what part of that explanation of Global Warming do you dismiss as junk science? Scientific theory does not equate to junk science - that is simply ludicrous.

I just don't accept the whole pemise of humans causing climate change on a global scale. People see natural short term changes. A bad huricane here a warm summer there and declare that humans are destroying the planet. These things happen naturaly and have nothing to do with us. A scientist sees a trend over the last 20 years and declares that humans are causing it. But when you look at trends over thousands of years you see the same fluctuations without benefit of humans. It just does not wash. Then the polititions step in, take a flawed premise and start using it for their own political gains. That is where I really get steamed about it. Why would I accept an economic forcast over an unproven theory? Simple, economics are understandable. Global weather is not.

There's no doubt that this has become a politically charged issue, but that doesn't mean the dialogue of Global Warming has to be reduced to a political tool - it is a very real issue that deserves real dialogue. Yes, much of the science is based on estimations and predictions, but that doesn't make it 'junk science' - which is really a made up term. Science is about analysis and hypothesis, and historically speaking - science has been pretty important in advancing civilization. Why the attack on science recently by many who align themselves as more conservative baffles me. Using a term you used earlier, the preface 'anti' could easily be applied to those who reject the science of Global Warming as being 'anti-science'.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Auto manufacturers can produce cars with more efficient engines - but they don't because it cuts oil profits.

Come on Fishdude. Your just trying to bait people with a statement like that. Think about it. Fuel efficent cars are in the oil companies best interest. They are already making record profits, but if we streach out the length of time they stay in business by using less in cars the longer they make those record profits. And I think you give oil compaines more influence than they have. An auto manufacturer is going to make a car people want to buy. If I had a choice between buying a car that got 30 mpg and the same size car that got 50 mpg I would buy the more efficient one.

Well, wait a minute. Auto manufacturers are already producing cars with more efficient engines. There are autos sold right now that get 60 miles to the gallon, and they aren't sold on the black market. They are well advertised. I don't see how just producing any automobile is going to stop global warming anyway. There is at least one other thing attached to that that has to happen first.

No, but its one step amongst many we can do to reduce pollution.

[GaryC 7]

There's no doubt that this has become a politically charged issue, but that doesn't mean the dialogue of Global Warming has to be reduced to a political tool - it is a very real issue that deserves real dialogue. Yes, much of the science is based on estimations and predictions, but that doesn't make it 'junk science' - which is really a made up term. Science is about analysis and hypothesis, and historically speaking - science has been pretty important in advancing civilization. Why the attack on science recently by many who align themselves as more conservative baffles me. Using a term you used earlier, the preface 'anti' could easily be applied to those who reject the science of Global Warming as being 'anti-science'.

I am not afraid of dialog. We can study this and talk about it until we have concrete evidence one way or another. And it seems you are now admitting that Global Warming is only a theory and not scientific fact. Good!! One step in the right direction. So, why should we sign onto a treaty that may or may not help a problem that may or may not be real?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

[GaryC 7]

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

I am well aware of the scientific method. Thank you for pointing it out to me. In light of that I have to ammend one of my statements. Global Warming is not a theory, it is only a hypothesis. There has been no warming proven to be related to human made Co2 levels. In fact the hypothosis that more closely matches the observations is the sun's activity.

Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am well aware of the scientific method. Thank you for pointing it out to me. In light of that I have to ammend one of my statements. Global Warming is not a theory, it is only a hypothesis. There has been no warming proven to be related to human made Co2 levels. In fact the hypothosis that more closely matches the observations is the sun's activity.

Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

If you understand the scientific method and recognize that it is unprejudice, then you wouldn't be dismissing the data, hypothesis and general theory of Global Warming as junk science because you would know that ANY scientist who repeated the same process would get the same results. You would also understand how the theory arrived to the conclusion the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels coincides with a much larger amount of CO2 in our atmosphere that is not being used by plant life which also coincides with a consistent increase in the overall temperature. That CO2 is a result of the burning of fossil fuels, combined with population growth and deforestation but as to the exact amounts, that is difficult to pinpoint with great accuracy how much from which factor. But the result is always the same - when there's an inbalance of CO2 gases released into the air to the amount of oxygen produced by plantlife, the atmospheric temperature rises - that is an indesputable fact. What part of that is junk science?

[GaryC 7]

If you understand the scientific method and recognize that it is unprejudice, then you wouldn't be dismissing the data, hypothesis and general theory of Global Warming as junk science because you would know that ANY scientist who repeated the same process would get the same results. You would also understand how the theory arrived to the conclusion the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels coincides with a much larger amount of CO2 in our atmosphere that is not being used by plant life which also coincides with a consistent increase in the overall temperature. That CO2 is a result of the burning of fossil fuels, combined with population growth and deforestation but as to the exact amounts, that is difficult to pinpoint with great accuracy how much from which factor. But the result is always the same - when there's an inbalance of CO2 gases released into the air to the amount of oxygen produced by plantlife, the atmospheric temperature rises - that is an indesputable fact. What part of that is junk science?

The vast majority of Co2 is natural. The amount that humans make is just a tiny fraction. What we put into the atmosphere does nothing to change the ballance.

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

very interesting article gary

[mmmbop1976 1]

So? It's good policy for the country. Kyoto is BS. Global Warming is BS. Capitalism is good for the country. What's the matter, don't you like capitalism?

But don't forget. Clinton didn't sign Kyoto!!!!

Why do make it into a 'for or against capitalism'? If you believe in having an unregulated free market then there's no point in arguing further. Setting standards and regulations for industry holds them accountable for their actions in terms of how it effects our environment and ultimately our quality of life. We as citizens have to abide by laws... you can't go squat in the middle of the street and take a dump - not without legal consequences. Is it an infringement on your freedoms to have such laws? Sure. But that's so I don't have to step in your sh!t. Industry should not have a carte blanche ability to do what they please with regard to our environment. You either agree with that premise or you don't.

industry does not have carte blanche to do what they please u idiot. we have epa, clean air act, clean water act, local regulations, yadda yadda yadda. you talk as if none of this existed. we did away with unleaded gasoline back in the 70's, china just stopped using it in 2000. we are the global leader when it comes to clean air technologies for industry and fossil fuels. did u know that a 2007 diesel tractor trailer driving in the city of houston will actually exhaust cleaner air than it takes in? was that because of kyoto? no way! it was because of our epa and our industry developing that technology. why? because we as a nation know that polluting our environment is not good. do we need kyoto to punish us when we are in fact the leader in clean environment technologies? open your eyes to facts my man. now i know ur original post was about co2 levels in the atmoshpere, but i took off on a tangent when u say that industry has carte blanche, that is just not true!

[GaryC 7]

industry does not have carte blanche to do what they please u idiot. we have epa, clean air act, clean water act, local regulations, yadda yadda yadda. you talk as if none of this existed. we did away with unleaded gasoline back in the 70's, china just stopped using it in 2000. we are the global leader when it comes to clean air technologies for industry and fossil fuels. did u know that a 2007 diesel tractor trailer driving in the city of houston will actually exhaust cleaner air than it takes in? was that because of kyoto? no way! it was because of our epa and our industry developing that technology. why? because we as a nation know that polluting our environment is not good. do we need kyoto to punish us when we are in fact the leader in clean environment technologies? open your eyes to facts my man. now i know ur original post was about co2 levels in the atmoshpere, but i took off on a tangent when u say that industry has carte blanche, that is just not true!

I agree with everything you just said except for one thing. Please don't use personal attacks. Steve is not an idiot, just someone with a different opinion. When it gets down to name calling all it does is galvanize the other persons view.

Ok, it's been fun guys. Time for bed. I gotta work midnights tonight.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mmmbop1976 1]

industry does not have carte blanche to do what they please. we have epa, clean air act, clean water act, local regulations, yadda yadda yadda. you talk as if none of this existed. we did away with unleaded gasoline back in the 70's, china just stopped using it in 2000. we are the global leader when it comes to clean air technologies for industry and fossil fuels. did u know that a 2007 diesel tractor trailer driving in the city of houston will actually exhaust cleaner air than it takes in? was that because of kyoto? no way! it was because of our epa and our industry developing that technology. why? because we as a nation know that polluting our environment is not good. do we need kyoto to punish us when we are in fact the leader in clean environment technologies? open your eyes to facts my man. now i know ur original post was about co2 levels in the atmoshpere, but i took off on a tangent when u say that industry has carte blanche, that is just not true!

I agree with everything you just said except for one thing. Please don't use personal attacks. Steve is not an idiot, just someone with a different opinion. When it gets down to name calling all it does is galvanize the other persons view.

gary, i agree, and in fact i was trying to edit my post, but wasn't able to because you were already replying to it and at that point edits are not allowed, so i will change it here in this post....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So? It's good policy for the country. Kyoto is BS. Global Warming is BS. Capitalism is good for the country. What's the matter, don't you like capitalism?

But don't forget. Clinton didn't sign Kyoto!!!!

Why do make it into a 'for or against capitalism'? If you believe in having an unregulated free market then there's no point in arguing further. Setting standards and regulations for industry holds them accountable for their actions in terms of how it effects our environment and ultimately our quality of life. We as citizens have to abide by laws... you can't go squat in the middle of the street and take a dump - not without legal consequences. Is it an infringement on your freedoms to have such laws? Sure. But that's so I don't have to step in your sh!t. Industry should not have a carte blanche ability to do what they please with regard to our environment. You either agree with that premise or you don't.

industry does not have carte blanche to do what they please u idiot. we have epa, clean air act, clean water act, local regulations, yadda yadda yadda. you talk as if none of this existed. we did away with unleaded gasoline back in the 70's, china just stopped using it in 2000. we are the global leader when it comes to clean air technologies for industry and fossil fuels. did u know that a 2007 diesel tractor trailer driving in the city of houston will actually exhaust cleaner air than it takes in? was that because of kyoto? no way! it was because of our epa and our industry developing that technology. why? because we as a nation know that polluting our environment is not good. do we need kyoto to punish us when we are in fact the leader in clean environment technologies? open your eyes to facts my man. now i know ur original post was about co2 levels in the atmoshpere, but i took off on a tangent when u say that industry has carte blanche, that is just not true!

Re-read my statement above - I said industry should NOT have a cart blanche ability. How you construde that into meaning that it currently exists is beyond me. I was refering to free market capitalism which is against any interventional regulations. There is a continuous push and pull between business and government in terms of how much regulation and for what, which are part and parcel to the fight from industry in discounting Global Warming. I was called an 'anti-capitalist' for being in favor of regulating industry's production of CO2 emissions. I felt it necessary to respond to such a label because it is inaccurate and is part of the political rhetoric that detracts from the real debate over Global Warming.