Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Guest Guest_guest_

Global Warming

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest_guest_

After reading a recent article in CapMag on the global warming myth I decided to find out some more by reading older articles.

That's how I came across the petition project and the scientific research titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". I also watched the video lecture by Dr Arthur Robinson and found it quite amazing.

I've also come across the sepp.org website and under "the week that was dec 13th" 4. Letter on Kyoto to Russian president Vladimir Putin, there is a link about collecting signatures which is http://www.envirotruth.org/ president_putin/.

I searched the site for some information regarding climate change and came to "Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change".

Myth #1a: 'Computer Models Show Catastrophic Warming in the Future.' shows a graph which can also be found in the scientific research done at the Oregon Institute, but exact slopes differ somewhat.

At envirotruth.org

From 1979 to 2001 the graphc details the measured temperature trend from satellites and balloons, which begins in 1979 at just over 0.0 and ends in 2001 at a little under 0.2.

At Oregon Institute

1979 also begins at 0.0 but ends in 1998 at just below zero.

Does anyone know why the graphs differ, have I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the graphs you mention end on different years, I have no reason a priori to assume that the number at 1998 should be the same as the number at 2001.

Insofar as climate change is concerned, it's still not clear what's going on.

Some places experience record highs while others experience record lows.

Some face record droughts while others face record precipitation, especially snowfall.

Most confusing of all, some of the believers in global-warming think we're headed for an ice-age.

Beware of any politician who says there's a scientific consensus either way.

It is all to easy to abuse science for political gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planet having warm/cold periods throughout its billions of years of history hosting lifeforms is no surprise.

That we and our carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't go so far as to call global warming itself a myth. The myth is the idea that climate change is caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Hello.

I'm curious why you think that's a myth?

My understanding is that climate is a result of internal/external climate mechanisms, one such internal mechanism is the atmospheric composition, whereby if you alter the relatively stable chemical composition, then you can further delay the release of IR radiation, which adds to the global energy budget....this physically manifests itself in a number of ways, and of course theoretically it should raise the earths average global temperature.

Btw,{and this is for anyone}..if the IPCC, The National Academy of Sciences and various other established/reputable institutions endorse "most" of the IPCC's conclusions...how isn't that a consensus?..... as we never have total agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kabana, study the info at the following web site

Pat Michaels and Fred Singer are what is known as Fossil Fools, IOW, they use their expertise to create doubt+that web-site isn't a peer-reviewed journal is it?

I'm not suggesting that everything the IPCC say is 100%, just that it has my support until someone convinces me otherwise.

Also, I'm of the mind that science=enough proper facts logically inferenced leading to a reasonable conclusion, and AFAIK, my description of the altering of an internal climate mechanism is accurate and the theoretical basis of belief in anthropogenic GW along with an observed global heating trend.

Btw, whilst I'm an environmentalist of sorts, I do realize that what's ideologically desirable isn't always practical....and it seems that the world has fallen in love with capitalism, so whilst I think capitalism is dodgy ideologically, it has the necessary worldwide psychological support, even if that is in denial of some of the prestigious scientific warnings, such as The Warning To Humanity Statement and the GEO-3 Report.

EDIT:

1700 Senior Scientists endorse the Warning to Humanity Statement 1992

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about

1100 Scientists offer the GEO-3 report 2002

(05/22/2002) UN report by 1,100 scientists warns 70% of the natural world will be destroyed over the 30 years due to over-population, deforestation, pollution, global warming, the spread of non-native species, and other human impacts, causing the mass extinction of species, severe water shortages, and the collapse of human society in many countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The website you quote from - the Union of Concerned Scientists is an anti-capitalist political actitivism group that uses the guise of “science” to spread their lies. Their leaders include anti-capitalists such as Noam Chomski and Jonathan Kabat and terrorists such as Eric Mann.

See http://activistcash.com/organization_motivation.cfm/oid/145

Here are some great sites with info on the environmentalist movement:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.earth4man.com/

http://www.objectivescience.com/

(05/22/2002) UN report by 1,100 scientists ...
If you like numbers, try this one on for size:

Over 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The website you quote from - the Union of Concerned Scientists is an anti-capitalist political actitivism group that uses the guise of “science” to spread their lies.  Their leaders include anti-capitalists such as Noam Chomski and Jonathan Kabat and terrorists such as Eric Mann.

So you think the scientists of the GEO-3 report are lying?

Did you delete my post?

EDIT:

What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

In global environment

Prominent Skeptics Organizations

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think the scientists of the GEO-3 report are lying?

Did you delete my post?

Yes, and yes. I don’t tolerate trolling on my forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and yes. I don’t tolerate trolling on my forum.

What is your logical justification for the belief that they're lying, and by extension many of the world's scientists and presumably the NAS?

How is it trolling to discuss the value basis of any doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kabana:

You honestly believe that 17,000 scientists were fooled by "faux-scientific papers," and than go on to claim that we can trust 1,700 to decide upon the environmental laws of the entire world?

You are deluding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the SEPP web site:

"In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it 'conform to the Policymakers Summary'."

Referring to the authors as "Fossil Fools" is ad hominem, not valid argument.

When "scientists" base climate predictions on models that do not take into account variables such as clouds -- it is clear that they are dishonest.

When "scientists" implicitly assume that a man-induced climate change is automatically bad -- it is clear that they are anti-man.

When "scientists" promote political programs that would destroy the world's economy based on models that do not come close to predicting current weather -- it is clear that their objective is something other than science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best refutation I've heard of everything Kabana has said exists in this forum under the topic "Environmentalism" and was written by RadCap. Following is his eloquent and rational reply in its entirety. Check that thread two or three replies later for his sources.

I trust and hope that he will not be offended by my presumptuous behavior here in quoting his work.

RadCap Posted: Jun 22 2003, 01:31 PM

fanofayn (would you mind if I called you by your real name - m - or do you prefer your nick?)

You say:

"I think it is because I do see the world as a finite resource. Yes, man is VERY capable of coming up with scientific ways of expanding natural resources, but somehow I can't imagine us building an alternative world if resources on this one become exhausted."

In other words, you are worried about resource 'running out'. The idea that natural resources are close to exhaustion has been around since at least the time of the Romans. It simply is not true.

While it IS true that the earth is a finite thing, for all practical purposes, its natural resources are limitless. From the height of its upper atmosphere to the depth of its core, the Earth is made up entirely of natural resources. The planet is a GARGANTUAN resource repository. It holds every element in quantities millions - probably billions - of times greater than man has EVER extracted. That is why even the suggestion that we are running out of natural resources should be obviously illogical just on the face of it.

The only 'problem' of natural resources isn't one of abundance. It is merely one of access. Which is precisely why man needs to be free - free to use science, technology, and industry in order to reach and/or collect those resources. Take mining for instance. Advances are being made in mining technology today which, in the future, should make it possible for us to remove materials *economically* from depths of at least ten thousand feet.

That one technological advance would so increase man's access to natural resources that ALL previous supplies would seem PUNY by comparison. And even at ten thousand feet, we'd literally just be scratching the surface, because the earth extends more than four thousand miles to its core.

Additionally, and more to the point, man's survival and prosperity does not depend on any one or any number of specific materials. His survival depends on freedom.

Concerning the 'pollution' man produces, and its ability to change the environment in any consequential manner, consider this: nature is the worlds BIGGEST polluter.

Natural erosion pours sand, silt, clay, and minerals into streams and rivers.

Deserts saturate the atmosphere with dust during every storm.

Natural fires pollute the air with heavy smoke and particulates.

And volcanoes and other vents spew sulfates, methane, carbon dioxide, and other noxious materials into the atmosphere.

And they all do this in volumes man does not even come CLOSE to releasing. Take carbon dioxide for instance. Man releases maybe seven billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, whereas the planet releases almost two hundred billion tons over the same period of time.

And then there's life itself. Living creatures are all notorious polluters. When they breathe, they pollute. After they eat, they pollute. In fact, termites alone expel about fifty billion tons of CO2 and methane each year. That's ten times more than man produces by burning fossil fuels.

These are just small, isolated examples of the overwhelming amount of pollutants the rest of nature releases. Next to them, man's pollution is insignificant.

In fact, it's been estimated that all the air polluting materials produced by man since the BEGINNING of the Industrial Revolution are dwarfed by the amount of toxic materials, aerosols, and particulates released by just three volcanic eruptions - Krakatoa in 1883, Mt. Katmai in 1912, and Hekla in 1947.

So to say man's contributions to the planet's environment are decisive - and to seek to regulate those behaviors because of it - is to completely ignore reality - and is to do so at the expense of man's continued well-being.

Now you (or someone else) might well ask if all this means global warming, the ozone hole, or other 'planetary' threats are true. However, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Sooner or later, NATURE will produce major climate changes on it's own (consult the history of the planet for evidence of this). The point is, in order to deal with such changes - whether they're natural or man-made - it is imperative for men to be free - free to decide how best to cope with the particular effects such a change would have upon them.

And that is a freedom ONLY capitalism can provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Halley

You honestly believe that 17,000 scientists were fooled by "faux-scientific papers," and than go on to claim that we can trust 1,700 to decide upon the environmental laws of the entire world?

You are deluding yourself.

As I'm a Taxi Driver, I speak with a variety of scientists from CSIRO and DPI at Myers Road Indooroopilly, Brisbane....and after doing some looking into the issue of GW using critical thinking, I concluded that only those scientists or people who can think critically and investigate the matter have a clue, IOW, a biologist might be properly informed on GW, but unless they've properly studied the issue, their input is worthless.

The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science.

Also note that half of the living Noble prize winners endorsed The Warning to Humanity Statement and that there are 100's of international news articles attesting to the damage we're doing, such as the effect on coral reefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Referring to the authors as "Fossil Fools" is ad hominem, not valid argument.
AisA

Yeah, thanks for that.

When "scientists" base climate predictions on models that do not take into account variables such as clouds -- it is clear that they are dishonest.

Maybe it's the nature of scientific modelling and the difficulty of modelling a semi-chaotic system.

What are suggesting though, that we have no right to assume anything because we don't have what you describe as certainty?

When "scientists" implicitly assume that a man-induced climate change is automatically bad -- it is clear that they are anti-man.
The science{facts and theory} suggest we're having an influence, as in GHG theory.

When "scientists" promote political programs that would destroy the world's economy based on models that do not come close to predicting current weather -- it is clear that their objective is something other than science.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Kyoto, but the idea that we can destroy the economy is rather tame considering Interface Carpets example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kabana,

Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be.

More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen't matter... either way, men should be free to produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kabana,

Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be. 

I don't know about easily fooled...but the 19 000 where duped by a pretense, as I showed.

The scientists from the Warning to Humanity Statement were mainly senior scientists including approx half the living noble prize winners AND their warning of biosphere degradation is being backed up by other reports from scientists 10-12 yrs on...such as the GEO-3 report of 2002.

More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen't matter... either way, men should be free to produce.

About to read that post now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The appeal to the masses argument is a logical fallacy. Whether they be 17,000 scientists on a petition or half of all nobel prize winners. I don't have much respect for the Nobel prize anymore but even if I did it wouldn't make global warming true because half of them thought it was so.

FYI: I just noticed the banning a second ago. I guess that spurred on the tirade of empty insults. What a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving this one post by Pogma up, temporarily, as evidence of his misbehavior. I had to delete at least half a dozen new threads he started this morning for the purpose of spamming the forum and abusing the moderators. His posting access has been removed, and I expect his IP will be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×