Global Warming

[Strangelove]

(bold mine)

No, the words you are looking for are "the actual truth."

Do you honestly think that we know everything that we can hope to know about climate change? That the field is a dead science? The field still has a way to go before the necessary theories are well supported.

Greenland is called Greenland for a reason.

Its called Greenland because when the Vikings went to Iceland, they found that a rather nice place to live so named the giant frozen wasteland up north Greenland to redirect travel that way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6069506.stm

3. If life with plenty of place to live and work, with a month's worth of clothing in the wardrobe, with grocery stores stocked with everything one can imagine, with personal transportation at 80mph wherever you want to go (so long as it has an exit number), with the ability to sit in one's living room and engage in nearly any kind of business transaction via networked computer, with medication or surgical procedures for nearly any kind of ailment, and with many of the cruder ailments nearly wiped out, etc., if that sort of life means that the environment must change ... then it's worth it a million times over.

Of course I completely agree with that. I don't want us to be naked hunter-gatherers trying to gather berries for a living. It is however justified to be interested in whether or not there is an affect on the Earth because of that lifestyle.

Let me give an example, Evolution. If you just used Darwin's Origins of Species to defend Evolution, you would have a very incomplete and in some cases incorrect view of how Evolution worked. Incomplete because Mendellian inheretence and denetics had not yet been re-discovered/discovered and incorrect because Darwin incorrectly believed in a "blending" theory of inherentence when we now know that Mendel shows us how gene expression works.

Do you think that the Dawinists answer to the creationists was "We have already proven you are wrong, we are not going to bother studying this topic any further."

Edited February 2, 2007 by Strangelove

[softwareNerd]

You're right. I forgot about the whole Gulf stream problem.

What exactly is "the Gulf Stream problem"?

Lindzen from MIT is on record as saying that:

..., we've measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes. It's almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down, you'd have to stop the rotation of the Earth or shut off the wind

The whole Global Warming debate reminds me of econometrists trying to predict the economy, and coming up with estimates that are nowhere close. The question is not: "do the estimates agree?" The real questions should be asked about the model: is the model based on truly causal predictions or on correlations? To the extent that causes are know, what is the degree of linkage and the accuracy with which such degree is known.

One thing is clear: humans have an impact on their environment. That's not just very likely, that's 100% certain. Of course, that tells us nearly nothing.

Edited February 2, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Thales]

Do you honestly have a problem with Ice Core data? I suppose you could argue that the scientists who come up with the data are intentionally giving false information, in order to make the situation look more dire then it is in reality, and if you believe in that sort of conspiracy then your opinion can't be changed. I am not even interested in whether the Cores show that CO2 will cause the world to be in dire danger, its just a point that humans are having an affect on the planet.

I object to you providing Al Gore as a spokesman. He's not credible.

I'll reference this primer for my explanation below. In fact, I highly recommend you read through and study that primer. It's really quite well done.

As to CO2 levels. This is the one point that is agreed upon, CO2 levels have been increasing. BUT ... what will the effect be? What has the effect been, since we've been living through increases of CO2 levels? Well, water vapor swamps CO2 by an order of magnitude as a greenhouse gas, and water vapor is omnipresent. Water accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect.

In the graph below you can see for yourself the absorption spectrums of the various greenhouse gases. The bottom of the graph shows their composite effect in the atmosphere.

Notice the big overlap with water vapor and CO2. Where ever a region is saturated, adding more does nothing. Btw, also note that ozone and oxygen are also greenhouse gases.

This fact that the effect can only occur until a region is saturated leads to another point, that the effect of a greenhouse gas is logarithmic, which means the effect of the gas diminishes dramatically as you keep doubling the amounts.

This graph shows the effect:

Note also, the above graph doesn't include the effects of clouds and other cooling effects.

Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually. Over the decades this may have accumulated to 25% of the total CO2, which amounts to 2.5% of the greenhouse effect.

Regarding man having an effect on the environment:

Which you acknowledge anyway:

Sure. This to me is a trivial point.

Yeah, but it would sure be a shame if our affect on the Earth worked to our disadvantage. This has nothing to do with the environmentalist nonesense about returning to nature. \

Look at the evidence. So far we've had 25+ years of global warming hype. In that time environmentalists have made dire predictions that were supposed to have happened by now, but since they've not happened, they keep pushing the dates back. At some time you're going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. These people are not honest. I think it's a bit disconcerting that you are using Al Gore as a source on this subject matter. People selling snake oil aren't the people you should go to for your medicine.

If you are changing something you don't completely understand (like weather) then it at least makes sense to be concerned about possible negative consequences. You can't just say that "I hope we have a constant affect on the Earth because human beings must affect nature!", you should make sure that you at least know the consequences of your actions.

So far the evidence doesn't support their claims. That's the bottom line. If you aren't going by the evidence, then you're being driven by the arbitrary.

I would love the Environmentalists to be proven wrong, I would love to see the Earth in the same condition when I die as it is now.

Not me, I'd love for there to be warmer climates. In fact, I'd like to see the world improved better than it's ever been for mankind.

"The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars!" -- attributed to Heinlein, but I don't know if it’s his.

And yes, I do agree that if there were to be any sort of Global Warming, that the Free Market would get a solution much more effectively then the UN or any government.

I don't think you realize you're being had by some big time hucksters. Postmodernism is an insidious movement.

Btw, there is a new theory on the effects of cosmic radiation on cloud cover, which may have a revolutionary effect on climate science. Fred Singer has just published a book on it.

Also, Inspector, nice quiz. I got 10 of 9, and learned something in the process.

...John

Edited February 2, 2007 by Thales

[gags]

What exactly is "the Gulf Stream problem"?

Lindzen from MIT is on record as saying that.....

When Bill Nye "The Science Guy" claimed that the Gulf Stream could be stopped by global warming (on the Larry King Show that you referenced), I nearly fell out of my chair. Luckily Lindzen was there to refute Nye's stupidity. Unfortunately, most of this stuff goes unchallenged.

[softwareNerd]

In Economics, Keynes came up with a model to show that the government could spend some money and a multiplier effect would make everyone rich. At one point, a substantial percentage of the world's economists agreed with the Keynesian model; yet, socialist spendthrift countries did worse than the ones that had "fiscally conservative" governments. In investment theory, some professors came up with a model to show that nobody can beat the market. At one point -- and this continues to today -- a substantial percentage of the world's finance professors agreed with this model; yet people who've ignored the model have made the most money, and -- worse still -- the largest college endowments have made money by ignoring the models of their own professors!

So, it is quite unsurprising that a group of scientists have models that have been predicting dire climate change effects for the last 3 decades, and we still see none! I say, let's wait a couple of decades, and if the sea has risen another 2 feet, let's talk.

[Thales]

Correction:

Also, Inspector, nice quiz. I got 10 of 9, and learned something in the process.

That should read 9 of 10. Must be dyslexia!

[Strangelove]

I object to you providing Al Gore as a spokesman. He's not credible.

The point was not Gore, the point was the Ice Cores. I don't believe CO2 to be partisan and alas, there is no better video on youtube.

The water vapor being a greenhouse gas is of course a well known fact but we currently don't have accurate recodes historically about it:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3

Another problem is that there are few data that tell us about the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere over history, which makes it difficult to determine the climatic effects from long-term changes in the atmosphere's water-vapour content. Fortunately, ESA's environmental satellite ENVISAT is now able to provide global coverage, and measure water-vapour signatures in the visible and near-infrared regions. Using complex mathematical techniques, the absorption spectra that are measured by satellites such as ENVISAT can be used to determine water-vapour columns, provided that accurate water-vapour spectroscopy is available.

So I don't dispute your charts and graphs about water vapor, but we don't know everything about this topic yet. Which is my main point, we have hypothesis, but we still need more evidence. My interest in the topic stems from the fact that we don't know everything yet. Unlike you, I just don't feel that we have all the evidence.

It took a long time for Evolutionists to get the data to prove the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and thus, has been around long enough for evolution to have occured.

Look at the evidence. So far we've had 25+ years of global warming hype. In that time environmentalists have made dire predictions that were supposed to have happened by now, but since they've not happened, they keep pushing the dates back. At some time you're going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. These people are not honest. I think it's a bit disconcerting that you are using Al Gore as a source on this subject matter. People selling snake oil aren't the people you should go to for your medicine.

I of course agree with your opinioin Environmental activists which is why my interest is always drawn to the figures.

Not me, I'd love for there to be warmer climates. In fact, I'd like to see the world improved better than it's ever been for mankind.

"The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars!" -- attributed to Heinlein, but I don't know if it’s his.

Aside from the fact that I like winter over summer (personal preference) I will just say that it would be ridiculous to start messing with things to try and get an intended goal if we don't know how to do it properly yet, something I am sure you would agree with.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Strangelove

[Viking]

Why must I go into this again? Every single article or essay I've ever seen from Objectvists makes this perfectly clear: GW freaks are liars. The things that come out of their mouths are complete and unmitigated BS. They deserve no more consideration than the unwashed derelict on the streetcorner holding up the "Repent your sins: THE END IS NEAR" sign.

Are you pretty much admitting that you haven't read anything by Objectivists on Environmentalism?

Where did you get that from? As I've already stated, I've read numerous articles by Objectivists on past GW claims. Past GW claims have been shown as false, but that does not mean that future ones will also be false. If one individual or group consistently spews out nonsense, I would certainly not pay it any mind, but if that is the case here, I am not aware of it.

[Viking]

What exactly is "the Gulf Stream problem"?

Lindzen from MIT is on record as saying that:

Well then. I was not aware. I take that back.

[Inspector]

Past GW claims have been shown as false, but that does not mean that future ones will also be false. If one individual or group consistently spews out nonsense, I would certainly not pay it any mind, but if that is the case here, I am not aware of it.

Here, that's the key. You have to ask: Why have past claims been false? (And I don't just mean some of them, I mean all of them)

If you have read Objectivist publications on environmentalism, then can you answer that question? Because the answer is repeated in every last one of them, as far as I can tell...

Edited February 3, 2007 by Inspector

[Thales]

What exactly is "the Gulf Stream problem"?

Lindzen from MIT is on record as saying that: The whole Global Warming debate reminds me of econometrists trying to predict the economy, and coming up with estimates that are nowhere close. The question is not: "do the estimates agree?" The real questions should be asked about the model: is the model based on truly causal predictions or on correlations? To the extent that causes are know, what is the degree of linkage and the accuracy with which such degree is known.

One thing is clear: humans have an impact on their environment. That's not just very likely, that's 100% certain. Of course, that tells us nearly nothing.

Thanks for that link, softwareNerd. Lindzen just smokes the opposition, as usual. He's not even breaking a sweat.

Let me just say, Senator Boxer claiming in that link that the scientists who signed the Oregon Petition didn't know what they were signing is full of B.S. The Oregon Petition HERE came with eight pages of scientific explanation. You can read that explanation at the bottom of the petition page where is says "Paper". If you didn't know what you were signing after that, you'd be a complete moron.

Think about it, 17,000 scientists signed the thing, and she's claiming they didn't know what they were signing. 17,000 highly educated people, most of whom can surely run circles around her when it comes to science, didn't know what they were doing.

And note, the people who worked on it were all top flight scientists, save for Zachery:

Arthur Robinson, a graduate of CalTech, and former professor of chemistry, is a research chemist and owns the Oregon Institute of Science and medicine

Fred Seitz was Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. I think he's a physicist. You can find him on Wikipedia.

Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist

Willie Soon is also an astrophysicist. Both on Wikipedia.

Zachery Robinson wasn't a scientists when he worked on that paper, but he has since graduated from CalTech (in three years!) with a degree in chemistry.

I get Arthur Robinson's news letter "Access To Energy" and he hasn't changed his mind one wit.

And while I keep hearing all there is a consensus among scientists on catastrophic GW (I'm sure most agree on the idea there is some warming, as Lindzen himself does), the fact is I don't believe it. I have never seen evidence of it. All I've seen are statements to this effect. The one alleged study on it, look at global warming, not catastrophic global warming, which makes all the difference in the world.

In fact in this posting http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=136442 I point out that the meteorologist James Spann says he knows dozens and dozens of meteorologists, and he's been working in the field since 1979, and he doesn't know one who believes the hype.

A minority of scientists disagree with the GW hype? A small minority? In a pig’s eye.

Environmentalists (postmodernists) are simply liars. That's their method of operating. They must evade reality and so this is what they do. They work hard to make thing appear the way the want. They use the prestige of science, not science (Ayn Rand's point). This is why Al Gore was upset when he was set up to debate Bjorn Lomborg. Please, don't make me confront my lies! is his confession.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for that link, softwareNerd. Lindzen just smokes the opposition, as usual. He's not even breaking a sweat.

He does, and it made me think: that's because they chose weak opposition for the interview. Lindzen's a scientist and the opposition are basically journalists or well-read amateurs. Then, just after the recent IPCC political-committee statement, CBNC had a couple of people on, and again the "pro-GW" one was a non-scientist. There seems to a be a pattern of having non-scientists defend the GW position, even though there's supposed to be a scientific consensus about GW.

The GW folk are now saying that the only scientists left opposing GW are oil-industry funded. OTOH, the whole GW thing simply reinforces my conviction that government funding is corrupting universities.

The issue of GW raises the more general question of how a lay-person can figure out what experts to believe.

Some people criticize anti-GW laypeople saying "why do they look at motives; why don't they read the scientific papers". This sounds right "in theory", but I think that it's really not possible to most people. As a layperson, I do not think it's possible to make a good scientific judgement about this, simply because as a layperson one cannot know what is relevant and what is not. For instance, one scientist says that ice-core data shows high CO2 is related to higher temperatures. Then, another says that ice-core data only correlates that way if one looks across centuries, and we know nothing about lower-granularity time-frames; and another says that warming causes more CO2 rather than the other way around. Sure it is possible to make a pretty decent judgement if one spends a whole lot on time of it. One would similarly need to study medicine before choosing a doctor, study investing before choosing a fund manager, and so on. That's not practical, nor does the subject of GW appear to warrant it. Laymen on both sides of the issue make judgements based on some non-expert level of facts, some level of judgement about the people involved, and some level of recognition of familiarity with the genre of the argument (like a person who would not listen to another 'get rich quick scheme' because he's written off the genre of get-rich-quick schemes.)

Anyone who thinks a layperson should select experts based either on the number of experts advocating a particular position or on the detailed analysis of their positions amounting to becoming an expert oneself is wrong/impractical.

To me, as a layperson, I've read some of the summaries from both sides. On the face of it, it appears clear that the pro-GW case is not slam-dunk by any means. Clearer still is the suspicious methodology followed in predicting the effects of GW. If anyone knows a hypochondriac, they'll recognize similarities; the hypochondriac will appear to have very good 'reasons" for all his speculative fears. Further, one has to look at the pattern and it is so familiar that anyone who believes the GW position at face value probably does not have enough knowledge of the history of DDT, Alar, population bomb, the AIDs scare, asbestos, EMF scares, and so on. It is possible that the boy sees a real "wolf" this time; but he's not presented anything more convincing than those old shout-outs.

[Thales]

He does, and it made me think: that's because they chose weak opposition for the interview. Lindzen's a scientist and the opposition are basically journalists or well-read amateurs.

No, actually, Bill Nye is a scientist, though not an expert on climate. Heidi Cullen is a scientist and an expert on climate. The other guy, Julian Morris, is an economist.

I've heard Lindzen talk on a number of occasions opposing the hype around GW, and he's always been brilliant, fact oriented, and has a razor sharp wit, which is dangerous for all comers when you sneak into his field.

Then, just after the recent IPCC political-committee statement, CBNC had a couple of people on, and again the "pro-GW" one was a non-scientist. There seems to a be a pattern of having non-scientists defend the GW position, even though there's supposed to be a scientific consensus about GW.

They used to bring out guys like Oppenheimer, but I get the impression that scientists who value their careers as scientists, most of them, don't want to make fools of themselves so they have to find people who will.

The GW folk are now saying that the only scientists left opposing GW are oil-industry funded. OTOH, the whole GW thing simply reinforces my conviction that government funding is corrupting universities.

Yes, I agree. It corrupts the field and distorts the market.

But, note, the "works for the energy industry" charge is an ad hominem. Iows, even if they did, you couldn't dismiss their arguments.

The issue of GW raises the more general question of how a lay-person can figure out what experts to believe.

Well, I've found some that I believe. What I try to do is look for clarity and contradictions. If I find any contradictions, especially big ones, then I know better than to listen. The GW hype people refuse to address reality. Their position doesn't match what we see in the real world, and notice how Bill Nye says he has no doubts of the truth of the science, which is ludicrous in a field that complex, with that many unknowns. The science is not nearly advanced enough yet to say such things about the climate.

Some people criticize anti-GW laypeople saying "why do they look at motives; why don't they read the scientific papers".

...

Sure it is possible to make a pretty decent judgement if one spends a whole lot on time of it.

Here is my answer to that. In the case of GW, considering how big a force it's become politically, I think it's become the responsibility for even the average citizen to learn the facts. We need to spend time studying it, because it's being shoved down our throats, and the consequences could be very destructive to our lives. For almost any other area of science, where there is no such threat, I agree with you.

I have to rely on experts for the most part, but I have the ability to separate the wheat from the chalf. Logic is your friend. That's why I provided the link to the primer on global warming above. I think it's a great place to start. As always, only each individual can be the judge. Each person has to think for himself.

One would similarly need to study medicine before choosing a doctor, study investing before choosing a fund manager, and so on.

That's not practical, nor does the subject of GW appear to warrant it.

You don't have to learn things *that* deeply. You don't have to become a climate expert. Just learn enough to deal with the basics. The facts have to fit together. I think the problem does warrant learning the matter deeply enough that you can come to terms with what is going on.

Anyway, environmentalists are counting on two things when they use “science” to advance their agenda:

1> The prestige of science. People respect science, and so they want that kind of power.

2> Talking over your head. They want to speak down to you from a position of authority and knowledge, like a god. You agree, because they are “experts” and you are just a layman.

For those reasons, I think people should learn the subject enough to burst the balloons of those spreading the nonsense.

Frankly, it more people would spend time doing so, the whole movement would die on the vine.

To me, as a layperson, I've read some of the summaries from both sides. On the face of it, it appears clear that the pro-GW case is not slam-dunk by any means. Clearer still is the suspicious methodology followed in predicting the effects of GW. If anyone knows a hypochondriac, they'll recognize similarities; the hypochondriac will appear to have very good 'reasons" for all his speculative fears. Further, one has to look at the pattern and it is so familiar that anyone who believes the GW position at face value probably does not have enough knowledge of the history of DDT, Alar, population bomb, the AIDs scare, asbestos, EMF scares, and so on. It is possible that the boy sees a real "wolf" this time; but he's not presented anything more convincing than those old shout-outs.

I suggest you have to look wider than the science. This is primarily a philosophical issue, not an issue of science. This is postmodernism on the march. If you add that fact to the equation, I think you'll better be able to judge the entire phenomena of environmentalism and their pet project global warming. If you add that to the equation, you'll better understand what is going on and why.

I've already emphasized the point in this thread, but I want to do it again. I have learned that environmentalists don't care about the science. It doesn't matter whether or not the facts support GW, this is only their tool to push their anti-Western agenda. This is what they are about, and this is what motivates them. You may not believe it, but I now realize this is what they are about.

[Strangelove]

I suggest you have to look wider than the science. This is primarily a philosophical issue, not an issue of science. This is postmodernism on the march. If you add that fact to the equation, I think you'll better be able to judge the entire phenomena of environmentalism and their pet project global warming. If you add that to the equation, you'll better understand what is going on and why.

I've already emphasized the point in this thread, but I want to do it again. I have learned that environmentalists don't care about the science. It doesn't matter whether or not the facts support GW, this is only their tool to push their anti-Western agenda. chris.gif This is what they are about, and this is what motivates them. You may not believe it, but I now realize this is what they are about.

Please hold off the Hyperbole. Be critical of the science but arguing that the people have some sort of philisophical flaw in them that makes them impervious to truth is ridiculous and goes against history. Laws like the Clean Air Act had more then enough scientific evidence to suggest that it was in the best interest of man to remove phase lead our from cars. I really have no problem with the people who wanted to keep the population healthier.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Strangelove

[Thales]

Please hold off the Hyperbole. Be critical of the science but arguing that the people have some sort of philisophical flaw in them that makes them impervious to truth is ridiculous and goes against history.

This is an Objectivist board. Check out AynRand.org and their essays on environmentalism and multiculturalism.

Anyway, you could not be more wrong. Look at Christianity, for instance. Notice how Christians scorn evolutionary theory, and support the idea of "intelligent design". These people go so far as to claim they are using science to establish their position. I’d say they are philosophically flawed. Environmentalism is no different. It is, rightly, accused by many people today of being a religion. History is replete with non-scientific people.

What I'm doing is identifying the problem after having dealt with environmentalists for several years. I'm completely convinced they don't care about the facts, that their whole agenda is to use science to force their way on society generally.

And, btw, the whole idea we can even stop global warming, if it were happening, is insane. It would wreck our economy resulting in the real destruction of lives, and make only a tiny, tiny dent in temperature rises. No rational man would do such a thing.

[Inspector]

Please hold off the Hyperbole.

It is NOT hyperbole. They have said openly that they are willing to distort the facts to "advance the cause."

Are you familiar with the history of the DDT hoax?

Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.

Did you know that the same is true of GW? You should. I already posted on it in this thread.

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

...

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

The DDT ban resulted in the deaths of millions even though it was proven that DDT was not harmful to man or animals!.

They don't care about facts. They don't care about science. Their goal is to destroy mankind. This is not hyperbole.

[DavidOdden]

Be critical of the science but arguing that the people have some sort of philisophical flaw in them that makes them impervious to truth is ridiculous and goes against history.

You apparently are unaware of the fact that science is rooted in philosophy, especially epistemology (this was a point that Eddington also understood well, and I recommend his Philosophy of Physical Science). See especially the best-known archi-nihilist of modern philosophy of science, Karl Popper, whose is philosophy is laid bare by David stove in his Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Trofim Lysenko is a famous example of a (Marxist) scientist who let his philosophy blind him to the truth, and caused the deaths and expulsions of hundreds of scientists who opposed him, and millions who suffered from the real world consequences of his "theories". The post-DDT ban apocalypse, which has also led to millions of deaths, was founded on bad philosophy.

If you have a corrupt epistemology that allows you to make unproven claims, then people will die.

[softwareNerd]

The Canadian newspaper "National Post" just published an interesting series on the scientists who're in the anti-GW camp. It seems the pro-GW guys call these folk "deniers", evoking the term "holocaust deniers". Little things like that simply help to affirm my evaluation that this whole campaign is about political philosophy rather than science. [Digg it here.]

I highly recommend taking an hour to read through the series (about six short pages).

Edited February 4, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added Digg link

[gags]

This thread should be required reading for every congressman and senator. They are clearly hell bent on commiting our country to a disasterous scheme to reduce GW and the recent IPCC report is just another propaganda piece meant to pave the way.

[softwareNerd]

Its called Greenland because when the Vikings went to Iceland, they found that a rather nice place to live so named the giant frozen wasteland up north Greenland to redirect travel that way.

This is a mix of facts and interpretation. The name "Greenland" appears to have been false advertising. In this role, it was obviously also an attempt to portray it as relatively attractive compared to Iceland. The message was "Greenland is Greenland, go there instead". It's safe to assume that the intent of the "advertisers" was to have people got to Greenland instead of Iceland. However, your formulation assumes more: it assumes an intent to not have people come to Iceland even if Greenland did not exist. Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference?

[Galileo Blogs]

I concur with SoftwareNerd's recommendation above to read this series. I just finished it and it is excellent. It reports on well-respected scientists who have alternative explanations for global warming (or even foresee global cooling!). It also shows how the politics of the global warming issue have stripped the honesty out of the scientific debate. Here are a few random quotes I pulled from the articles. Reading the full articles in the series is worth the effort:

Svensmark and his colleague had arrived at their theory after examining data that showed a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays --highspeed atomic particles originating in exploded stars in the Milky Way -- and low-altitude clouds. Earth's cloud cover increased when the intensity of cosmic rays grew and decreased when the intensity declined.

Low-altitude clouds are significant because they especially shield the Earth from the sun to keep us cool. Low cloud cover can vary by 2% in five years, affecting the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square metre during that same period. "That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," Dr. Svensmark explained.

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

Throughout his report, in fact, Sir Nicholas [a believer that man causes global warming]not only assumed worst possible cases, he also assumed that humans are passive creatures, devoid of ingenuity, who would be helpless victims to changes in the world around them. Such assumptions underpinned Sir Nicholas's claim that "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever," and led Tol to view Sir Nicholas's conclusions as "preposterous." Tol's conclusion: "The Stern review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."

More important, Tol [an economist who is a global warming skeptic] is a student of human innovation and adaptation. As a native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment. To assume that humans in the future would not use their ingenuity and resourcefulness in sensible ways defies the history of mankind and ultimately serves no one.

Despite such obtuseness Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

I am beginning to conclude that the quote below is the bottom line description of the whole global warming frenzy. It is a religion for true believers:

With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Galileo Blogs

[Viking]

Here, that's the key. You have to ask: Why have past claims been false? (And I don't just mean some of them, I mean all of them)

If you have read Objectivist publications on environmentalism, then can you answer that question? Because the answer is repeated in every last one of them, as far as I can tell...

I've done some more reading now, and now I see what you mean.

[Inspector]

I've done some more reading now, and now I see what you mean.

Great! A lot of people have told me that the true depth of Environmentalist evil, lies, and the damage they have done to our society sounds like hyperbole at first. But it really isn't. The truth is quite shocking, when you get right down to it.

[softwareNerd]

As to the so-called scientific consensus, here's an open letter from about 60 Canadian scientists to their Prime Minister, written in April 2006.

[DarkWaters]

Two interesting op-eds on global warming are in the Washington Post today; one by Anne Applebaum and one by Robert Samuelson.

Here are some interesting highlights. The first is from Ms. Applebaum's column:

The much-vaunted [Kyoto]treaty creates a complicated and unenforceable system of international targets for carbon emissions reduction, based on measurements taken in 1990. Critics of the American president have condemned him for failing to sign it, conveniently forgetting that the Senate rejected it 95 to 0 in 1997, a margin that reflects broad bipartisan opposition. At the same time, few of the Asian and European signatories are actually on track to meet their goals; those that will meet the targets, such as Britain, can do so because their economies rely less on industry than they once did. Canada and Japan aren't even close to compliance; China and India, whose emissions rates are growing most rapidly, are exempt altogether as "developing" countries -- which, given their economic strength, is absurd.

Robert Samuelson's article is especially great. First, he explains how most of the expected increases in greenhouse gases will be from nations with emerging economics.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.

Second, he discusses how it is unrealistic to expect any nation, especially the developing ones, to sincerely urge its populace to drastically cut back emissions.

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty, fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.

Thirdly, he argues that the adoption of new technology will not yield a significant reduction in emissions.

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.

He also discusses the shortcomings of imposing a "cap and trade" system.

I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding -- politicians pretending they're doing something.

Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps") to emit carbon dioxide. To exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas ("trade"). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions. Businesses absorb all the costs.

But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. Quotas would be lax. The program would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would also be a bonanza for lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment. Hello, influence-peddling and sleaze.

Lastly, Mr. Samuelson offers what he thinks would be the best remedy.

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.

Edited February 8, 2007 by DarkWaters